Member Info for Bannor

Gotta love the way some posters take their own judgements, assessments, hopes & wishes ....then post them up on here as a statement of fact or a fait accompli ... fortunately not too many are suckered in by in & can maintain a healthy reasoned dialogue rather than swallow a one sided rainbow fest ... Ho hum ...

...a little more would be nice but that'd be a good off the back of licencing .... fingers crossed for a sale then

... Oh I don't think for one minute that full Amapa production will be within the next 2-3 years but I am hopeful we'll be long bought out before then as well & that a truer value will be reflected once licences are issued .... whether that's the fullest value potential or not doesn't really matter, just more reflective will do ....

....hope I'm wrong but I've a niggling feeling that the reason for last week's "Amapa project update" might be because the licences will not be forthcoming in March as expected - as said I hope I'm wrong & I guess so long as it doesn't delay the start whether they arrive today/tomorrow or another couple of weeks is irrelevant ... it's about the only reason I can think of though for last week's RNS rather than simply including the detail in it with the licence announcement if it was that imminent 🤷🏼‍♂️.

Not guaranteed - not a certainty .... I plan to be out if Amapa sold or we see it's value properly reflected in the SP & then I'll keep an eye on the future potential (or not!!) & get back in when/if a successful outcome on Sonora looks likely ... the only way I'd hold once we see a proper value for Amapa - is if it's sold with the proceeds divi'd out prorata - then I'd let the shares ride for Sonora ..

Can't wait for Amapa to get done at the moment ....

@ TC ....god I hope so along with an escape route via a subsequent full sale of the asset for good value shortly after the licences are in ....

.... LoL .... what stop there ... I much prefer the Gilby valuation PMSL 😂🤣😂🤣

Yes & no doubt they like to back a 'winner' & they will probably happily await the 2-3 years for an outcome (whatever that is) ...

You seem to like AI generated answers so here's another one:

No, cases funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM) are not always successful. While LCM maintains a high success rate compared to industry averages, litigation inherently involves risks, and LCM has experienced, and reported, significant case losses.

Private Debt Investor

Private Debt Investor

+3

Key details regarding LCM's success rates and risks:

Case Losses & Financial Impact: As of late 2025, LCM reported a challenging period, including nine case losses in a single year, with three of those under appeal. These losses included cases where substantial amounts of their own capital were invested.

Success Rate History: Historically, LCM has reported a high success rate, previously citing a profit on roughly 89% of its funded cases. However, this is not a guarantee for every case.

Risks & Non-Recourse Nature: Funding is provided on a "non-recourse" basis, meaning if the case is lost, the claimant does not have to repay the funding, and LCM writes off the investment as a total loss.

Types of Cases: LCM often supports high-merit, complex commercial litigation and international arbitration, which are subjected to rigorous due diligence, but the unpredictability of legal outcomes remains.

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

+5

In summary, while LCM selectively funds cases with strong prospects, they are not immune to losing cases and suffering negative financial impacts from unsuccessful outcomes.

...yep again all well & good, I do like a good precedent however each case is tried on its own merits & I've already said that GFL/KDNC may well have a good case to present, after all quite apart from the categorisation of Lithium by the MX govt GFL/KDNC have also consistently said they did meet them, can & have evidenced this ..... what I've also said us that I personally don't want to wait for another 2 to 3 years whilst they bat it backward & forward whilst there is:

a) no guarantee of winning ... as much as we'd like to think there is & LCM's support infers there might be.

b) uncertainty over what an award might be based on or the size of it, even if they can't challenge the ruling that could potentially challenge the size of any award I would imagine.

No I'd much rather get out on the back of Amapa & just keep an eye on proceedings .... Preferably by our selling Amapa & then putting the company to sleep on C&M so that any award (if there is one in due course) can be divvi'd out according to shareholdings at the time of placement into C&M. ... Cmon Amapa....get licences get sold for good value ....

.... Yes all well & good & it'll be interesting to see how it pans out considering that the MX govt stated non-compliance with minimum expenditure as the reason GFL/KDNC concessions were cancelled ... there may well be a good chance of victory but the time-frames are still years IMO & victory isn't guaranteed just more likely than not .... I'd like to be out of here on Amapa long before this resolves itself then keep an eye on it & buy back if it looks like it's going in the right direction in a couple of years time .... LCM involvement does NOT necessarily = success!!

Ooh ... does it say that at the mention of LCM the Mexican govt haven't caved in & they're going to pay us $100M in 2 months time

Oh wow really!!! Oh that makes all the difference then I'm sure Mexico will cave in over the next couple of days if they know LCM are behind us!!!!!

Seriously though what on earth difference do you think that's going to make in regard to time-frames or outcome .... LCM will have done their due diligence & feel we have a strong case & we may well have HOWEVER that doesn't mean it's going to get resolved any quicker - if it goes through the ICSID as GFL have the best we can hope for is that they'll link/consolidate the 2 cases either way saying months is somewhat ridiculous IMO & could still be years ...

LCM aren't doing this as a favour they will have built in either a % &/or multiple of their outlay so whatever award we get (assuming successful) will be less that amount.

”If they secure an award in the coming months"

After 20 months they haven't even set a date for GFL/BCN's case to be heard yet & they're still arguing the toss about jurisdiction & consolidation .... the earliest date for the case to be heard is at the end of this year & we haven't even started ours yet so I wouldn't get yourselves in all of a fizz over any couple/few months tosh - absolute nonsense!!!

We should also be mindful that the reason eventually given for the licence cancellations wasn't nationalisation of lithium but a failure to meet expenditure commitments & what impact that might have on deeming it expropriation.

Best outcome would be that GFL & Mexico agree a viable cooperation agreement that by default we get dragged along with .... saying that Sheinbaum is hoping to drag it out beyond 2030 is equally reassuring 🤣😂🤣

.... first part fair enough ... second part not so much what we've got evidence of is that the funder sees the 'opportunity' of a significant return (depending on the terms of their agreement with us) from a % cut of any award out of a lengthy litigation process (3 years minimum I reckon as it's not even started yet), which after carrying out their due diligence they feel we've got a reasonable chance of winning - their % cut will no doubt higher or lower depending on their confidence of success but at a guess I'd say a minimum 30% of the gross award up to 50% depending ....

As usual time will tell - hopefully though Amapa will see me out of the door long before Sonora resolves itself (unless the MX govt make an unexpected U turn) ....

Question.... if they've got cash reserves why do they owe the directors so much in unpaid salaries/fees??

Observation... the directors didn't 'purchase' the shares at 0.004p though did they, they were issued to them in lieu of salary.

Is that not more factually correct?

Cadence and REMML have engaged leading international law firm Clifford Chance as counsel for the BIT process. The Clifford Chance team representing Cadence and REMML specialise in mining-related investment treaty arbitration cases

View on the iron ore asset ... personally I've put my hat & coat on that peg.

View on management - I've said before & say again that despite delays they've handled Amapa pretty well .... I'll leave that there & let others fill in any other blanks .....

...good that it's created so much positive interest trade wise though eh!! 🤣

Comon Amapa get those licences issued -

...yes although unfortunately most here are well aware of how accurate the SP on previous research notes have turned out to be!! One day Rodders though one day 🤞🏼😂

$4.5M (total) for the 30% interests in JV1&JV2

Then there's all the monies spent on buying massively into BCN - some of which they 'claim' was sold at a profit but believe that if you will - personally I'd love to see a specific breakdown of purchase & sales values of all the shares to see how it panned out 'overall' eventually!!