George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
It seems to me the NOMAD are there to ensure proper compliance with AIM rules. Arguably they failed in that role, and importantly they acted in a manner that locked all us investors in (immediaye delisting before trading started) whilst blind to information or concerns that they knew of.
At the very least, they should have reported concerns to the FCA (their regulator) and the exchange. So there should be reporting by the NOMAD, and considering investors are only now catching up on the truth. It would be very interesting to know how accurate their reporting was. Otherwise, I would be smelling a rat, that the NOMAD was saving their own skin at our expense.
Star, u still a dirty rotten shorter innit ;)
Mole, agree that someone got out before the delisting. Was it YA or others?
All those late reported trades, that's another fault that should be ironed out. Perhaps they should be reported as and when ordered rather than when fulfilled?
Let's hope ZaZa steps back in the UK sometime with public knowledge were to find him. Meantime, surely the Nomad must be liable somewhere in this story, especially if they were aware of something going on. The Nomad did not pull out for nothing, and surely has a duty of care concerning investors!!!!!
I notice a few comments today
First, Star I assume must mean another shareholder group as I can't recollect anything from FSHG that could be construed in anyway as attacking anyone.
Second, let us be absolutely clear. The FSHG is not a shareholder action group to engage in litigation. That is simply not in the mandate for the group. I know some people would like that to be the case. If people want to engage in litigation they MUST form and constitute a separate group. There has never been any block or inhibition to people doing that at any time since 2018. Its up to those who talk about doing it taking the lead if that is how they feel.
The company has failed shareholders and has simply refused to engage with either a well constituted Group of shareholder or all shareholders via RNS R. That has been regrettable, a mistake and in my opinion unacceptable. In the past decade I have been invested Steve has made a point of not engaging with shareholder groups. Quite why a recent contact has been established with several random email contacts they did not know rather than a group where the board including Steve had met several in person I am simply unable to explain. So its not about not having a spine as you put it - its about not having a mandate.
There are reasons for caution on becoming litigious.
1. While the company had prospects of securing the block for all shareholders any such action clearly risked making a bad situation worse.
2. If relations are bad now they would be irrevocably broken once litigation starts. Then if you were to launch action against the directors and they resigned or removed are you ready to take over the company and stand as a Director in this mess?
3. The nomad is often named as a target. I would add to that PWC who did the 2017 audit. They have not gone anywhere since 2018 and will outlast the current events. But read the responsibilities of a Nomad first https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/aim-rules-for-nominated-advisers-july-2018.pdf see page 20 and you decide what the Nomad has done wrong here to breach rule OR2. I would expect auditors like PWC to have done more.
4. If your target is the board (and I think they are culpable) simply observing the current difficulty and time on the two existing cases involving the directors should indicate while you might think its easy – it is not. They have clearly already made it hard to even serve let alone get anywhere near a court or any prospect of recovering money. Of the Directors in the end the only one with anything may be Hope. He was on the board when the accounts and RNS were issued and may have benefited by the omissions. If you fight them they have insurance.
5. Ya clearly knew more. And largely got out.
Even if its on a no win/no fee case the burden and risk could be large. Testing the water to get some opinion makes sense but a new group would need to be constituted to take a lead on that.
If Criminal charges were brought ( by whom?) and were successful that would open up the case for a Civil action to recover losses.
Great in theory but the chances of PIs getting any money back would be zilch imo and the costs would just add to our losses.
Aim is for gamblers, short term punters. Look at 95% of the super risers from a few months ago and I bet most of them are now way, way down on the highs.
Example look at our neighbours, up to 18p , heading for 2p. There are loads of them, all with locked in punters trying to big them up, chasing losses averaging down..
AIM is a cesspit and needs sorting out.
Zaza and crew came to the UK to peddle their lies in person and deliberately withheld information they were arguably obligated to provide. Misleading investor information about the loans, company structures and relationship with the Georgian government. NOMAD were complicit and SHOULD have been checking the facts and details of RNS.
Overall I am now in the belief that most of Info, as far as amounts of oil & gas is concerned have been, just ONE big lie.
I also think that SN would have a reasonable chance of getting aggod %, if not all of there investment back & this includes any other of the major investors.
On what has been found on ZM. It just comes down to him being a low life bit of scum, if all true of which at moment, looks like it is.
Seems to me the most viable causes of action for AIM investors would be:
1. Against the NOMAD Cairn for its failures in properly regulating disclosure in the months and years leading up to delisting. The misleading disclosures about drilling results and failures to fully disclose the terms of the lending documents (specifically interest) with Outrider could be actionable. They would probably in turn blame the directors and try to suck them into any lawsuit, because ultimately the directors are responsible and the NOMAD is susceptible to lies and withholding of information by the directors. Cairn at least is present in the UK and has assets.
2. Against the directors or the company for defrauding investors through false or misleading disclosures. However, none of them have a presence in the UK or assets in the UK (or in the case of Frontera, any assets at all).
Not all the $500 million was through AIM. Some was private placements of loan notes, to investors in the UK US and Greece. The number reflects the investments in operations in Georgia.
NOMAD roles?
Look at those who have taken payments, free dinners and other sweeteners and not checked information and given proper governance resulting in the "improper performance of a relevant function or activity". Criminal.
Company officers?
Who has given false information or breached a position of trust to make a gain for himself or caused a loss to another, or to expose another to a risk of loss.
Who has made false statement s and untruths about the company?
I think their is a role for the FCA and law enforcement to consider the actions of some.
A half billion pound fraud committed on AIM, it cannot be right for UK investors.