Member Info for Bebeto

You own shares in IOG plc, you do not own shares in its subsidiaries.

IOG plc owns shares in it's subsidiaries, not you.

I've already explained shareholders in the parent company do not directly own a piece of the subsidiaries. Subsidiaries are like separate businesses with their own owners.

However, if the subsidiaries do well, it can make the parent company more valuable, which can be good for the shareholders of the parent company because the value of their shares may go up. But they don't own the subsidiaries themselves.

Poorinvestor, sadly not as they are legally separate entities, which means they have their own ownership structure.

The parent company's share price is influenced by the performance of the subsidiaries but no direct ownership from the parent company's shareholders.

You asked to explain the RNS which I did. Now for your second question.

Operating subsidiaries are separate companies owned by a larger parent company, in this case, IOG plc.

Operating subsidiaries are structured in a way that provides legal separation from the parent company. This separation helps protect them from the financial troubles of the parent company.

These subsidiaries are distinct legal entities with their own assets and operations.

The subsidiaries are owned by IOG plc but they are not going into administration because the debt is with IOG plc and not the legally separated subsidiaries.

They have appointed administrators to help deal with its financial issues. The administrators are talking to the company's creditors to figure out what can be done, which may include restructuring the company.

The NOMAD's have resigned with immediate effect, the company has 1 month to find another Nomad or the listing will be cancelled.

The company has said they have no intention of getting another NOMAD (nominated advisor).

No there were ample opportunities to exit here over a 7 month period.

The company didn't have the wriggle room to do much else with the level of debt and under-performing assets, it always was a pending car crash for share holders.

I don't know why people believe rampers more than derampers but they do to their own expense.

I won't buy in without the funding but think it won't be soon.

I read the 35% as the known expenditure and they're still calculating the rest.

That would explain the at least instead of approximately.

It's not approximately 35% of current CAPEX, it's at least 35% of current CAPEX because they don't have all the information to put a figure to it.

I don't think anything will be resolved until mid-November when the updates are out.

It doesn't make sense to apply for funding without a detailed report.

It's good to have a balanced view, ramping or deramping has no affect on my decisions.

Didn't expect anything else, shareholders are in a pickle with funding no show.

I'm on the sidelines waiting for funding before making a decision on buying in. Never trust an AIM listed CEO or take an ambiguous RNS as a positive without clarity.

Agree but what's the covenant breach that people have mentioned. I'm unable to find it.

The costs is mainly contained within the paragraph below, read carefully and then decide :

To de-risk the operation, the final detailed engineering work has added additional scope items linked to the major equipment packages, made several enhanced design changes from the original engineering study (including changes to the water abstraction pipeline design and water storage reservoir), and has identified the requirement for additional civil works and quantities. Additionally, changes have been required with selected suppliers who have not been able to deliver to the project timeframe, which has added further cost pressures.

Clearly they have identified a problem with water production and management which they are planning to tackle. There's also an inflationary issue regarding costs.

All of the above will have an impact on AISC, expect a change when the estimates are updated.

Which in turn could have an affect on funding negotiations.

I'll wait for the company to announce something, one camp saying one thing and another camp saying something else. Perhaps part is right on each side.

Prepayment deal would take a few months to organise. IMO

Favourable to Glencore maybe. I'm expecting a loan notes solution.

Loan notes would be my guess.