Member Info for alwayshoping

At the recent Investor presentation Q & A , AT was asked for details of ALL board members of RAM....he claimed he required their permission to reveal all names and then he would update us. Still no details. So what have they got to hide?

Feeks..."I am also realistic about what it takes to fund a Tier 1 project in RoC. Sir Mick is the deal fixer with all the contacts, who is making it happen. "  So what does that tell us  about the appointment of the so called "gift to mining" and the super duper CV and background of MK. ?  MK should have been "relieved of his duties", with the option of Sir Mick replacing him many months before him coming up with the idea of his merry band of Ram Raiders and potentially grabbing most of Zanaga for themselves. Everything about this deal stinks to high heaven.

Was it just me, but I kept getting totally p155ed off with AT spouting about the "huge premium to the current SP" RAM had to pay, and what a super deal it was for shareholders. No mention of the long suppressed SP and manipulation over the past few months bringing and keeping the SP so low. Da re not say anymore; already had a red card and suspension for words used on here. Ex..now popping over the other side to see if I can find you.

Hi EX...only just seen your request, as have been away for a few weeks on holiday, and staying away from here to avoid negative vibes etc re this RAM RAID and ruining my holiday.

Off out for a few hours again now, but will DM you asap.

Hi GGG.....now back into this thread/forum. Got a "red card" 48 hours suspension for "comments" about the company. Im also on the ADVFN site and ZIOC thread, but cannot see where you are on there

Cont... Timeline of events (expected $9bn news → sudden pivot)

• Company formation records of the new private entity

• Who controls/directs it

• Evidence of conflict of interest

• Who benefited financially

• How shareholders or investors were disadvantaged

The SFO takes well-structured evidence far more seriously than narrative complaints.

⚖️ Reality check (being honest)

What you’ve described is absolutely within the scope of serious fraud investigations — especially the low-value buyout via a newly created company tied to an insider.

Whether authorities act depends on:

Quality of evidence

Scale of losses

Public interest

But this is not “minor corporate shenanigans.”

This is the kind of thing that has led to prosecutions before.

If you’re comfortable sharing (no names needed):

• Was Zanaga publicly listed at the time?

• Did shareholders get forced into this outcome?

• Is the conflict financial, ownership-based, or family/associate linked?

I can help you assess how strong this looks from a legal/regulatory perspective and what route typically works best.

(Not legal advice — just practical insight into how UK fraud enforcement actually works.)

I am currently out of the uk on holiday for a few weeks and my betterr half not too happy I spent far too long on my laptop yesterday...so up very very early to find out as answer to the question below to A1...HOPE IT HELPS./can be considered...further to yesterdays shenanagins surrounding the Zanaga Iron Ore "transfer of t he company to Arc Red Minerals...a new private company only set up days ago...that enabled this low-value entry and the sudden pivot from the expected $9bn technical news to a $143m private buyout. is this something that the SERIOUS FRAUD SQUAD would get involved in...There isdefinite proof of the instigator/lead having a conflict of interest.....It sounds like you’re talking about the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) (people often call it the “serious fraud squad”), so I’ll frame this in that context.

Short answer: yes, this is exactly the kind of situation the SFO can get involved in — but only if it reaches a certain scale and seriousness.

Let’s break it down clearly.

🚨 When the SFO typically steps in

The SFO investigates and prosecutes serious or complex fraud, bribery, and corruption, especially where there is:

• Major financial harm

• Abuse of position or insider control

• Dishonesty around company transactions

• Complex corporate structures (new entities, transfers, pivots, etc.)

• Conflicts of interest hidden or misused

What you’ve described raises multiple classic SFO red flags:

✅ Sudden transfer to a newly formed private company

✅ Huge valuation shift ($9bn narrative → $143m buyout)

✅ Potential asset stripping / value capture

✅ Evidence of conflict of interest by the lead instigator

✅ Transaction structure that benefits insiders at expense of shareholders

Those patterns are textbook corporate fraud investigation material if supported by evidence.

⚠️ Conflict of interest is especially serious

If you have proof that the person driving this:

• Had a personal financial interest

• Controlled or influenced both sides of the transaction

• Failed to disclose it properly

That can fall under:

Fraud by abuse of position

False representation

Conspiracy to defraud

Breach of directors’ duties

Which can be both criminal and civil.

📌 Will the SFO definitely take it?

They usually get involved when:

✔️ The sums are large (this clearly is)

✔️ There’s evidence, not just suspicion

✔️ The structure looks deliberately engineered

✔️ Other regulators flag it or victims report it well

If not SFO, it can still trigger action from:

FCA (if markets/shareholders involved)

Insolvency Service

National Crime Agency

Civil High Court actions

Often these run in parallel.

🧾 What makes a strong report (important)

If you or others are considering reporting, the strongest cases include:

• Timeline of events (expected $9bn news → sudden pivot)

• Company formation records of the new private entity

• Who controls/directs it

• Evidence of conflict of interest

• Who be

Have just dropped GB NEWS a couple of links and brief details enquiring whether or not they are interested in the story.

For those considering a punt, worth considering this from over on LSE.....NAI DYOR etc etc..sooty snipes10 Feb '26 - 12:17 - 3021 of 3026

0 0

If Red Arc do go ahead with this I'm guessing they will take it private, rebrand it and re-float it at much, much higher multiples than today.

Just wondering what Dennis and his government think about all this, or what they have been offered.

With the current and long term demand for the volume and grade of ore we are sitting on,are you trying to tell us that there was not one entity /steel manufacturer in the whole wide world who wanted in , in some form or other with a far better deal than what we now have. AT , MK and the rest of them have now got a lot to answer for. I hope you are reading this AT et al, because if I were you, I would no longer be sleeping very comfortable each night. As usual..alwayshoping......and leaving the rest blank.

With the current and long term demand for the volume and grade of ore we are sitting on,are you trying to tell us that there was not one entity /steel manufacturer in the whole wide world who wanted in , in some form or other with a far better deal than what we now have. AT , MK and the rest of them have now got a lot to answer for. I hope you are reading this AT et al, because if I were you, I would no longer be sleeping very comfortable each night. As usual..alwayshoping......and leaving the rest blank.

In corporate governance and stock-market context, the idea you’re describing — that the board of directors must act in the interests of all shareholders — is usually captured by a few precise legal terms:

✅ Core terminology

Fiduciary duty

This is the main umbrella term. Directors owe shareholders fiduciary duties, meaning they must act:

• loyally

• in good faith

• in the best interests of the company (and by extension its shareholders)

📌 The two most cited fiduciary duties

Duty of loyalty

Directors must put the company/shareholders first — no self-dealing, conflicts of interest, or personal gain.

Duty of care

They must make informed, reasonable decisions (not reckless or negligent).

📈 Related stock-market/governance phrases you may hear

Acting in the best interests of shareholders

Shareholder primacy (the theory that shareholder value is the primary goal)

Stewardship responsibility

Corporate governance obligations

Trusteeship role (more informal phrasing)

⚖️ In legal language, you might see:

“The board owes fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the corporation and its shareholders.”

or

“Directors must act in good faith in the best interests of the company as a whole.”

In corporate governance and stock-market context, the idea you’re describing — that the board of directors must act in the interests of all shareholders — is usually captured by a few precise legal terms:

✅ Core terminology

Fiduciary duty

This is the main umbrella term. Directors owe shareholders fiduciary duties, meaning they must act:

• loyally

• in good faith

• in the best interests of the company (and by extension its shareholders)

📌 The two most cited fiduciary duties

Duty of loyalty

Directors must put the company/shareholders first — no self-dealing, conflicts of interest, or personal gain.

Duty of care

They must make informed, reasonable decisions (not reckless or negligent).

📈 Related stock-market/governance phrases you may hear

Acting in the best interests of shareholders

Shareholder primacy (the theory that shareholder value is the primary goal)

Stewardship responsibility

Corporate governance obligations

Trusteeship role (more informal phrasing)

⚖️ In legal language, you might see:

“The board owes fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the corporation and its shareholders.”

or

“Directors must act in good faith in the best interests of the company as a whole.”

It is going to be rather interesting to see how all this pans out, not only for us mere P.I,s, but for the likes of AT and MK.  As far as we are , they have only received shares and /or options in lieu of wages/salary for a couple of years now. Both of them will surely want a share price of at the very least £1 to £1-50.   Should we hear news in the next few weeks that results in an instant share price spike/rise to  anything between 25p and 50p, that will mean only one thing ie an instant sell off and a very quick slump in the share price. No end on here have already stated that they have waited far too long for the return we think we should get, but are now quite happy to get out with some sort of profit rather than sit it out for as long as it takes. The question is, how long are AT and MK willing to hang around for their just rewards, and how will the SP be managed ?  Obviously, the dream ticket is a suspension of shares and confirmation of an outright sale at xxx p per share to all confirmed shareholders on the previous day/date.  Definitely not holding my breath for that scenario, but as usual.....always hoping.

It is going to be rather interesting to see how all this pans out, not only for us mere P.I,s, but for the likes of AT and MK.  As far as we are , they have only received shares and /or options in lieu of wages/salary for a couple of years now. Both of them will surely want a share price of at the very least £1 to £1-50.   Should we hear news in the next few weeks that results in an instant share price spike/rise to  anything between 25p and 50p, that will mean only one thing ie an instant sell off and a very quick slump in the share price. No end on here have already stated that they have waited far too long for the return we think we should get, but are now quite happy to get out with some sort of profit rather than sit it out for as long as it takes. The question is, how long are AT and MK willing to hang around for their just rewards, and how will the SP be managed ?  Obviously, the dream ticket is a suspension of shares and confirmation of an outright sale at xxx p per share to all confirmed shareholders on the previous day/date.  Definitely not holding my breath for that scenario, but as usual.....always hoping.

STN. Lets hope so. Soon reach double figures if it was to happen and no reason why they shouldnt. Win win all round.

As usual....alwayshoping.

For the benefit of newbies on here, and the reason Peel are and have been  dumping their 60 million odd shares, all acquired for around 1p each.

Courtesy of SpotTheNutters a couple of days ago.

16 June 2025

Peel Hunt Limited

""Full-Year Results for the year ended 31 March 2025

o The Group produced a loss before tax (LBT) of £3.5m (FY24: LBT £3.3m), due to an increase in our costs, predominantly from exceptional Group restructuring costs. On an adjusted basis1 the Group was profitable with a profit before tax of £0.8m (FY24: adjusted LBT £2.7m)

__________

Their turnover increased, yet they're still making next to no profit, so 'busy fool' syndrome.

'Adjusted', they made £800k. That's next to nothing considering the turnover.

They'll be keen not to wait and to take any profit they can in haste, to shore up their performance, which considering their turnover, is really poor. They've got their Results due in December, so they'll be keen to show an improvement on June's Results.""

GLAH

Over on the ADVFN forum, two late reported trades 1214 and 1215 of 100000 each are showing as "sells" at 4.00p and 4.05 pm Trade 1213 is still missing. Also showing a closing price of 4.05p up 50% on the day.

Hi beardozer. RE..Always hopeful - whatever happened to him?

Still here; still holding; sold none...and of course....as usual....alwayshoping.