Member Info for bluerill

(con't). As for the whole issue of Turcan, what he knew when he resigned, etc, I am more circumspect. I lean towards disagreeing with your overall view, primarily because it would have been far too dangerous - and amateurishly unprofessional - a move for the LOAM fund manager(s) to risk. But I don't dismiss the possibility altogether.

Kooba - On the issue of the phone call, I covered both contingencies. Since it is uncontested that it happened, it was almost certainly on a taped line and therefore would have of course been reviewed immediately and action would have long since been taken if anything, absolutely anything, unethical or illegal, had been discussed. If it was not on a taped line, as I also wrote, the fund manager would have been summarily dismissed and an investigation launched, both of which would have either been officially announced or would have leaked for sure. It is simply how the fund management business works. No exceptions.

Having said that, if shareholders think Tariq's effort is likely to 'succeed', my view is that they start to disabuse themselves of the notion. As I've written before here and the other board, Tariq Hamoodi is a very smart, very accomplished special situations specialist investor, particularly in litigation-related ones. He invested a material amount of his own money on due diligence in making his Nano investment and has done so again in mounting his current effort to unseat the board. However, this is little more than a windmill tilt, in my view, from a (justifiably) angry large shareholder who unfortunately, is not as expert in activism as he is in litigation situations. The odds against success here are high as getting to 50%+ would be in any situation would be with the largest shareholder likely voting against. In addition, and I can't emphasise this enough: for those who continue to rage about 'secret phone calls' and other intrigue that Tariq alleges: You need to stop and realise that if that phone call had had ANY content related to privileged information, etc, as Tariq has claimed - and so many small shareholders seem to think is not just likely, but somehow already proven (!) - heads at LOAM and the Company would have already rolled and there would have been a full-scale investigation by the FCA or some other reg body immediately announced. And the reason is simple: that conversation - which LOAM and the fund manager(s) involved - have never denied took place - would have been on a taped line and listening to it would have been the very first thing everyone involved - including the regulator - would have done as soon as Tariq's accusations hit. If there were absolutely ANYTHING damaging therefore, the market would have been informed long, long ago (and, btw, if it had occurred for any reason on a non-taped line, there would have been a very similar outcome as LOAM managers would have been immediately fired, etc). I know it's just one of many accusations made by Tariq, but it is a key one, perhaps the most damning and foundational to his case. I'm sorry, but the (lack of) evidence suggests it does not stack up.

I think someone's having a laugh and used ChatGPT to create the thread header and provide 'tornadotony's' comments.

PKF are the auditors from the legacy Fox Marble business. Eco are not the first casualty among small cap UK companies of an open secret in the industry: that firms like PKF have severely overbooked business while it remaining understaffed. This has all the hallmarks of such a situation. This is likely wholly on PFK's shoulders and shareholders should not be frightened into thinking otherwise. A couple, three weeks and PFK will have worked through their backlog and we will re-list. No harm, no foul.

More from echoridge on advfn: '.....At the risk of repeating myself, the strongest circumstantial evidence of a large, on-going buyer was yesterday's 1.6m share institutional cross. In what was yet another miserable day for UK small caps, one would have expected a bargain that size to go through at a decent discount to the prevailing bid price. Instead, the seller was able to deal at (near-enough) the mid-price, despite the market conditions and a block of shares some 10x normal dealing size. That's a strong indication that the seller knew they had some leverage in negotiating the price, most probably because they were aware that the buyer has been in the market for some time and would likely remain ongoing even after buying the 1.6m share block.....'

Looks like Nutmeg was/is right. This is from the other board. He reckons the buyer is up to roughly 4.5m and goes on: '....Resistance - you were right: The seller over the past week and a half was a forced seller. He completed yesterday. Today, there has been a one-off institution-to-institution cross of 1.6m (visible on some services like Bloomberg already, but probably won't appear on others until after the close), where the price - despite these terrible market conditions - was not at any discount, rather comfortably inside the current spread. That is because the buyer, who has been taken all of the roughly 4.5m shares that have traded in blocks over the last couple of weeks, continues to bid for shares, even though sellers are starting to dry up. Let's hope this continues next week to the point where the buyer eventually has to begin to pay up and/or he crosses the 3% threshold and has to disclose......'

If the profit warning were 'big', the RNS would have said so (ie., '...MATERIALLY lower than previously expectations....). It did not and your headline is therefore materially misleading.

No reaction as yet, but it looks like 5.3m share block just traded at 18.24p. As yet very little else is known, but I will soon

No it's not. Guyana and Alaska have been joint-lead focused for new 'elephant' O&G exploration, almost exclusively versus any other regions on earth, for almost a decade. Meantime, despite Guyana's attractions, s*cks to be ECO or TLW.

Please note my previous post. The massive volume is completely consistent with a significant index rebalance as I predicted.

I'm surprised this hasn't been more widely disseminated: the huge jump in volume in conjunction with the fall today is completely consistent with PANR's ejection from an MSCI UK small cap index and addition to the relevant micro-cap index. I couldn't be bothered to find out the precise name of each, etc, as I suppose I didn't think it would have this much of an impact, but it has and the impact should end on the COB today. Some decent portion of today's fall should reverse tomorrow.

Just like comparing posters

Some of us would settle for a coherent sentence fragment.

Ok, how about 'moron'? The 'discount' you're referring to is the 'discount' of the placement price of 17p - which is the same price for EVERYONE - to today's closing price of 18.2p. When you write 'offered DISCOUNTED shares via Primary Bid, no thanks....', the only possible relevant meaning is that primary bid was worried about shifting their entire allocation because of weak demand and thus you were offered shares below 17p. You were obviously not, so you are either a liar or the other thing the first amendment protects me in describing you. Go nuts

Ooooh, nasty lie. Primary bid was offered a small allotment out of courtesy. The deal was way oversubscribed by instos and high net worths and primary bid or any other retail-facing intermediary was neither sought nor needed. You were NOT offered anything at a discount, other than perhaps some advice from me: cancel your account.

Quality insight, cappy. don't be a stranger

All the circumstantial evidence points to these 2 days of presentations will be substantive and thus likely share price sensitive.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/BVC/capital-markets-day-and-investor-presentation/15951098

This is meaningful as Moti understands the stakes AND the opportunity in showing, not telling, just how much value is imbedded here and how he can and will exploit it going forward:

Sure, no problem.