Member Info for BigBiteNow

Superg thank you for the posts. I have been following this story for a number of years and I would question your conclusions on a number of fronts. Firstly, whilst recognising the political risks that exist in Mozambique, it is a long stretch to declare that no investors will touch the timber concession because of the threats being declared by Dylakama. These threats having been going on for a good couple of years now and smack very much in the face of the positive job the Mozambiquen governing party have been carrrying out in moving the country forward, whilst repeatedly accommodating Renamos often bizare demands. As the first article you posted clearly points out, Renamo are claiming that they will take over 6 provinces even though they didn't even win a majority in the majority of them. I could provide several interesting articles that clearly demonstrate that the Renamo leader spends the majority of his time making outlandish claims he cannot back up, with the takeover of the northern provinces a regular feature on his agenda for the last 12 months or more. As for the logging licenses, the article posted is from July last year, and is another clear piece of Renamo propoganda. The Mozambiquen government took steps last year to prevent 'simple licenses' from exploiting the forests and Obtala responded to this in their RNS of 2nd Dec where they explained the strict regime the 'concession' contracts must operate under. Thats not to say that Mozambique doesn't have its risks, but those risks are no different to the level of risk experienced in many other AIM listed company's juristrictions. Its a risk we and many upper tier investors take on every day, and will no doubt be reflected in any price the timber divestment, if achieved, will be valued at. But that's a long way from declaring that the country must be trouble free before investors will move on it.

Whilst I am more than happy to give this company's management a dogging from time to time, I don't agree that the timber divestment is late. It was stated that it would commence 1st quarter 2016, so a little way to go yet. It does look though that a steady trail of speculators that bought in on the rumours are slowly trickling away. thats not a bad thing in the long run. The next interesting piece of news for me would be the delivery and revenues from the despatchment of the 500 ton of cantalope melons, scheduled also for Q1 2016 (RNS dated 6th Nov). The achievement of this order for me would speak volumes about the company's potential for turn around and their ability to deliver what they say they will this year and beyond. The revenues would also help alleviate any concerns over a placement. The share price in the meantime will naturally drift because nobody is interested in this story until it starts becoming a reality. Timber divest aside of course.

When I first read the article, my initial reaction was rather forelorn because I focused entirely onthe minister's comments. However, after some time to think, I find that I am actually a lot happy because now I know what the current state of play is. Firstly, one way or the other, the company has communicated that they are in receipt of the funds to commence both mines. That is a major positive as following delisting, it looked like all was lost. Now we have not only funds, but $30m worth. Secondly, Mothae is still an option, be it with a very favourable wind, but it is on the table, be it now or through tender. If it goes down the tender route the company will likely have to decide to push Lemphane forward on its own for now, but at least with finance they now have a choice. Secondly, from Simon Reutters comments, it is clear that the company has worked very hard for a very long time to secure this deal. Thats not me being sensitive or understanding because the handling of this saga, has simply not been good enough. What it demonstrates though, is that interest, investment in the diamond industry is suffering on what is likely an unprecedented scale. Therefore, interest in new schemes of the nature and risk ratio of Lemphane and Mothae is extremely limited. That should one would surmise severely limit the number of parties willing to tender for Mothae. However, the question moving forward is how serious is the minister and how aware is he of the shifts in the sector. Being intrinsically connected to South Africa, Lesotho's leadership must be acutely aware of the impact the slow down in China is having on their neighbours mining sector. Furthermore, Lesotho unemployment rate is running at some 25% and is particularly high among the youth. Political unrest is well documented and the government needs their mining projects in play and the jobs that come with this to alleviate these sort of pressures. So can the minister, despite his rhetoric really afford to pass on this deal. This is Africa, so anything is possible, but one would think such a critical decision will ultimately be put before the Prime Minister, who has taken an active role in the new mining policy released last year. Lesotho is not a bg country and Mothae is deemed critical enough that it is worthy of mention when assessing the country's economic outlook, see link below. http://www.afdb.org/en/countries/southern-africa/lesotho/lesotho-economic-outlook/ Its difficult to say what the Lesotho government will decide, as who knows what other plans/strategies they have in play. However, I would much rather be where we are now with money on the table and something to bargain/negotiate for, than in the dark and wondering what in the world is happening. And finally having finance in this climate, is very strong position indeed.

That is a very interesting development indeed. One must ask oneself what is the likelihood that Paragon knew that this event would take place. Because when you are struggling to find investment, you need to find every avenue possible to reduce our costs, thus minimising the investment required. If paragon were aware that this was a distinct possibility, then it would make perfectly good business sense to allow the deal to flounder. Why would you pay $6.5m for something you could get for far less. But it depends on what they knew. One strong indicator is the words used by Paragon in their December 14th RNS, which many at the time took to be arrogance. That statement it could be argued now supports the argument that they knew it was being handed back. They may be up against competition but an advantage they hold is Lemphane, because they can demonstrate that in giving PRG Mothae, the government of Lesotho likely gains Lemphane revenues also. Without Mothae perhaps in this market, there is no Lemphane. Whatever the case it is a positive outcome for the company, even if they have to compete for Mothae.

I received an email as recent as yesterday, having followed up on my previous unanswered email prior to Christmas. It was from Hugo Philion and rather appreciatively apologised for not answering my previous mail, as the company receive many enquiries and do not have a dedicated person to deal with them. Given the position of the company at this moment, I can understand that. They are still working on the necessary funding and will update via the website when there is a material piece of news. As for the discussion regarding taking the company private, for me this argument does not hold any weight. There is simply too much risk at this stage of the development for any private investors to carry. Whilst Titanium and Paragon may believe in their resource, that is in no way the same as backing it to the hilt. And that does not even take into account this unprecedented turn in the global commodities market. I won't say that it is impossible, but it would be highly unlikely given the level of risk attributable to such a move. If the company is doing anything, it is working towards raising sufficient finance to take Lemphane to stage one. Perhaps Mothae is included too, who knows? But certainly for me the effort is in raising finance right now. Once this is achieved, they will likely weigh up the best market upon which to trade the shares. i.e. what will it costs to join and manage. A market such as AIM gives the company access to the best andmost fluid form of raising capital. An mining company in early stages of devlopment cannot nail down its costs easily. Other costs come about, and a market such as AIM allows them to easily answer these needs. It also gives Titanium a better exit strategy that they can control. Remembering that they hold a number of shares through their loans, that can be more easily converted on an established market, thus increasing their return. Something I have no doubt they planned to do further down the line once the share price could absorb it and sufficient dilution had taken place to keep them under the 30% barrier. Something I might add a two mine business could easily absorb, should it be realised.

I have followed the mozambique story for some time and the so called political unrest has been going on for years. Mozambique enjoys world beating growth figures of 7.5% for 2014 and much the same this year too. They are suffering from the commodities downturn and strong dollar, but as a country it is a fairly happy place. Rename is a concern but they have very little politically to feed off and Dhlakama is something of a buffoon. I believe the price recovery here is more of a punt simply because the risk reward is currently so low. If the BOD can sort their lives out it could be a great little company, even without the timber, which for 3 years has been a total disaster. More honesty, show intent to hit next year's farm orders and expand the processing divisions and then who knows. I would certainly then look to buy more. The timber divestment in my opinion whilst potentially rewarding, is purely a bonus against what the company can achieve on the food side with their tax credits and food certification. We just need to start seeing something actually happen Happy New year one and all, and good luck whatever you do in 2016

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/listing/fees/aim-fees-for-issuers-2015-2016.pdf Perhaps this will make it even clearer.

Ladies/gents, the link I provided is for admission fees to AIM, not annual fees. That is under the admission fees and is set at £6250 per year. Whatever Mr Winnifrith states, that is what the official website for the exchange states.

If they increase their shares in issue to 400m i.e funding costs them 123m shares say, then the fee rises to 23k So yes the numbers are not onerous

Here's one I made earlier. . http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/companies-and-advisors/main-market/listing-fees/aim-fees-calculator-admission.html?numberOfShares=277000000&openingPrice=0.04&calculate=calculate So a little over 12k at 4p and at 10p it rises to just under 19k Irrelevant numbers.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/other/12223477.html For those that are not sure of the exchanges view and position on the 30 day rule, the above article offers a rather sobering appraisal. 24th Now being a Tuesday would allow for 23rd Dec to be the 30th day. The company in question actually had their shares cancelled on 22nd January but this likely allowed for the 3 bank holidays over the Christmas period and the fact that the 16th january was a Friday. Paragon have no bank holidays to fall back on, so the announcement should be tomorrow. That said delisting does not mean that the company is finished, it only removes their trading platform, which is a well recognised and authorised body in which to trade small caps. Returning to AIM in the future, is an option for the company once they can demonstrate they are viable financially. I have in my research only found one example of a company that achieved this, but its existence demonstrates that it is at least possible. The company has the option of opening up an alternative, less recognised means of trading their stock, but having delisted to avoid dilution, this is an unlikely avenue. They will most likely keep plugging away in the background with a view to sealing a deal and returning to AIM.

http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=54132&ArticleTitle=Paragon%E2%80%99s+Deal+With+Lucara+to+Acquire+Mothae+Mine+Terminated Bothing new here apart from the email to Rapport News element. Somebody is interested in Mothae. The question is is, is it Paragon or another party?

From what limited research there is on the subject of suspended firms and loss of nomads through resignation, those that do come out of suspension have cleared up any financial matter that was hanging over them first. The nomad quitting here, for me, is directly linked to the suspension of trade. The company has stated that they are short of working capital but have flat refused to dilute. I understand the company's position but it goes against the rules of AIM. They had the ability to do a placing and continue trading. Whether it descimates the share price or not is of no relevance, thats public trading. By not doing this placement, they have lost their nomad. A new nomad's priority is to protect the exchange and ensure that the company is financially viable and honest in its declarations to the market. Therefore, they will not allow PRG to come out of suspension without funds of some sort, as the company has already stated that its position is one that the company's financial position needs to be clarifed. Therefore, PRG know they either have to deliver funding and then sign up the nomad, or, they sign up a nomad on the understanding that a placement will take place at the same time. PRG may have this lined up as a very last resort but clearly it damages the company's negotiating powers. So I would not be surprised in the least if PRG allow this to delist. They then have full control over what deal they then make with any potential investor, a share price that is frozen, and no nomad to tell them to be good. However, it is an extroadinary way to conduct business and incredibly high risk. But on the very thin chance that they pull it off, the conclusion of funding will give them the opportunity to sign up a nomad far more easily, because the one stumbling block is then removed, the business is viable. Any costs for relisting will be minimal compared to the loss of ownership that would be inflicted by doing business at 1.5p rather than 3.9p. And though the current feelings against the company run strong, these will all be very quickly forgotten should PRG return to market with a solid funding agreement and a visible future. Even the city, whilst perhaps not loving PRG right now, will soon chnage their tune when there's money to be made. thats the beauty of the city. Lastly, what delisting also says to potential investors is that if they want an interest in this business, they need to make a sensible offer, because the company is willing to goas far as delisting to prevent this. Depends of course how much those investors really want to be involved. Like I say extremely high risk maneuvers but then I suppose, thats how you make money in an environment such as that faced by mining at the moment.

I have researched this to death and have found no company that received special dispensation beyond the 30 days. After all delisting, does not end the company, it merely removes it from a recognised service by which to trades its shares. And that is what it is, a service, which has rules in order to be a member. The company could end up trading on OTCBB but I can't honestly believe that is where they would go. They would instead look to relist on AIM. However, for that they needs to demonstrate funds (12 months I believe) and rebuild their reputation once back. It has been done before but not by many. A good example of one that did is NETeller, who eventually became Paysafe Group. They are now doing very well but it was a very bumpy road along the way. But to be clear, there is no extension, Christmas or no Christmas. My point on Christmas Eve was that whilst they may be there half day, it is as good as anything a dead day. If something is going to happen, it must happen before this.

Well the CEO of Paragon Diamonds must either be one big Kahuna or is utterly dillusional. The company has by my reckoning 5 working days to sign up a nomad or delist. I don't count 24th because very little business will be done that day, and whilst the nomads will quitely rightly want the business, would they really be willing to work Christmas Eve to achieve a £25000 fee? Or, the company is so hell bent on organising the financing their way, that they are prepared to delist, sort out the financing, then relist. Now that would be a bold move indeed given the rhetoric we have heard over the last year, (and still yesterday) about share holder value and fighting dilution. If it delists, then shares held in ISAs and SIPPs must be tranferred out, as unlisted shares cannot be held. I assume Mr Manduca knows this, (perhaps his 700000 pension related shares are under the same threat) and wouldn't have the front to execute such a move over a placing surely, given that all this palaver is to get the small shareholders (Titanium really) a better deal. Well delisted isn't a better deal. So I say once more, is he a big Kahuna or a big fraud.

Jonjo my apologies, I see now how my comment read. I meant if Mr Manduca/Paragon has to eat humble pie, not the posters here

http://www.armordesigns.com/news/company-news/detail/1544/armor-designs-announces-listing-cancelation-of-securities.html Here also is a flavour of how exacting the exchange is on the 30 day rule and the length of time needed to carry out due diligence. So the process lends itself to be 'tight' Lat next week is most likely the best we could hope for due diligence to be completed.

I would poin one and all to my earlier post on Cloudbuy. They were suspended and found a new nomad with only 6 days to go before the 30 day limit. The history of this can be seen through their RNS releases. Whats more interesting is the usual on line pundits were putting the boot into Cloudbuy over their Chairman's Quindell style share sale scheme prior to the suspension. Yet a nomad was prepared to take them on. Whats interesting is the day they returned the chairman cleared up this share matter with an RNS released 1 minute before the new nomad was announced. Make of that what you will, but a similar eating of humble pie may be on the cards here as a prerequisite to a new nomad coming on board. Whether it be placing or otherwise orientated.

I have been invested here a long time and heard numerous rumours attached to this share in that time. However, the source this time around is at least far stronger along with a believable sale price. $100m dollars is approximately £66m, the biological asset was valued at £112m in the interim accounts.

Further to my earlier piece and on a more positive note, I have found an example of a company who's nomad quit with immediate effect and was able to relist within the 30 day period. Cloudbuy announced on 11th Sept 2015 that their nomad had quit and immediately reported that the shares would be suspended for this reason. They were then relisted on 5th Oct, only 6 days before the deadline, so backing up my thoughts that around 3 weeks would be required for due diligence. There is no link in terms of financial uncertainty, but the nomand quit the day the interim results came out. The RNS covering the lifting of the suspension states that suspension was lifted upon appointment of the new nominated advisor. So PRG cannot lift the suspension until the nominated advisor is in place, nor can they update the market on progress of funding or a placing without the nominated advisor.