Member Info for BoracicLint

Yes, as I remember it, there was quite large-scale illegal mining at the Tanzanite mine which required extra security to be employed and it was so unsafe for company employees that legal mining had to stop for some time. A combination of this and apparently unhelpful local government put paid to what was otherwise a promising venture. After all, tanzanite is rarer than diamonds. I may be wrong but I think the BoD was at least partly different in the sapphire venture, which struck me as a mess from beginning to end.

The current gold prospects have numerous positive aspects in a first world country. To my non-geological brain, they seem to have handled things well so far, especially with keeping sensible RNS that are neither too frequent nor frilly. It seems a case of when, not if, there will be a JORC maiden reserve announcement. Until then, we may see the SP drift in either direction. The SP movements are mainly incomprehensible in this share but we mainly seem to be LTHs so will put up with it in the short-term, having belief in medium-term prospects.

I think they are obliged to mention insolvency as a possibility to ensure (potential) investors are aware of the risk. It does jar as a sentence though: salvation or oblivion in a few words!! The fact that negotiations are ongoing with the FCA is perhaps the main positive point I picked up from the RNS. If they had been broken off, the SP would fall off a cliff.

Really positive results in this RNS that reinforce the confidence in the previous assay RNS. Also the fact that some is quite near the surface and so should be cheaper to extract.
I'm a bit surprised by the lack of SP action as a result though maybe I shouldn't be as most posters and investors here seem to be LTH. Surely it should only be a matter of time before a wider audience takes an interest and starts pushing up the SP. Roll on Phase 2 drilling - I'm excited and might even be tempted into a teeny top-up.

The RNS from 26th May said "The remaining results are expected in the coming weeks " so it may still be some time before more news. At least the SP seems stable following recent gains. Fingers crossed for more good news but I'll only be checking LEX once a day for now.

Yes, great to see more good news and continued momentum in the SP since about Jan. I got into this share in 2017 at 250p so am still losing badly but let's hope the upward move continues!

Hi, try this
https://www.amigoscheme.co.uk/docs/AllSchemeltdJudgement.pdf

I think AMGO will survive - it's in no-one's interest to see it fold now and the future is surely bright for the sub-prime market once the current issues and news negativity have been sorted out. The need for people to have access to this type of finance hasn't gone away and that was recognised by the Woolard Review.
My sense is something will be worked by AMGO that the FCA will agree with (or not object to), meaning some pain for shareholders and secured creditors but it will take months.
Averaged down by topping up a princely 10,500 shares at 9.36p to reduce my loss. Anyone else risking it today??

This is in the judge's conclusion:
" I have accepted the submissions of the FCA that the Redress Creditors lacked the necessary information or experience to enable them properly to appreciate the alternative options reasonably available to them; or to understand the basis on which they were being asked by Amigo to sacrifice the great bulk of their redress claims, while the Amigo shareholders were to be allowed to retain their stake.
143. I have also accepted the FCA’s submission that the court’s refusal to sanction the Scheme will probably not lead to the imminent insolvency of the Group; there is no evidence of any immediate (or even medium-term) liquidity crunch, and the directors will doubtless wish, if possible, to preserve the value of the enterprise for its various stakeholders. The FCA expects the directors to continue to explore and promote a restructuring which fairly allocates the benefits and losses among the various Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ALL Scheme Limited stakeholders. I agree with that, and would urge the directors to continue their efforts to promote a suitable restructuring."
If there is to be an appeal, surely it would have to satisfy these points and it doesn't seem to me the BoD will be able to do that. So it looks as if they will have to restructure in some way to offer more redress.
My guess is the BoD will have a Plan B to avoid insolvency but it will take time. Also, does it mean having to agree an updated corporate funding structure/SoA with creditors, and another vote? Again, I suspect it means months more work and the SP likely to stay low until there's some light at the end of the tunnel.
I may have missed it in the 33 page pdf but I don't remember seeing much/any mention of the FoS, which is plainly not an unsophisticated creditor!!
I don't know whether to risk a top-up now.

Ha, ha. If only I had done my research in 2009. As one of my very first share purchases, I bought my initial batch on the advice of a work colleague who said "Tanzanite One, they look good. I bought some and so should you." Hopefully, I'm a bit less naive now?!

carsgeek, here is what the FCA themselves say: "We are an independent public body funded entirely by the firms we regulate, by charging them fees. We are accountable to the Treasury, which is responsible for the UK's financial system, and to Parliament."
Their role seems odd - on the one hand they regulate but don't seem to offer meaningful advice when needed. Then they announce at short notice they will appear at court and deliberately attempt to destroy Amigo's work of the past 4 months. This is bureaucratic dictat and more like something out of Kafka that a functioning market. The FCA should hold its head in shame.
I very much hope the judge will look at both sides' arguments and see that Amigo's approach is the more reasonable IMO. I don't know if the judge can only approve/reject the SOA, or recommend approval with changes.

I've only a small holding and sold some on Monday but today bought back some : 6000 at 16.8p and 6500 at 15p. A pimple on the back of a blue whale but am overweight in this share for my portfolio size.

For all the posturing , selective fact-picking yesterday and apparently inconsistent behaviour by the FCA, my sense is they won't want AMGO to go to the wall. The scheme does seem just about fair. Will the judge approve it? No idea, but my opinion's moved to more negative from 'likely' . Fingers and toes crossed...

It's a bit confusing. We had a big rise on 12th May on no news. Now today, another big rise on no news.
Also LSEs recording of buys/sells must be wrong - there are more sells than buys and yet the SP is currently up 21%???

Anyway, let's hope it stays this green until the end of the day and beyond.

I sold over half my holding yesterday, as nervous about tomorrow. On balance, I do think the judge will approve the SoA as that is in all the parties' interests and is the logical conclusion of events to date. However, if there is a small chance the FCA or judge could ask for the terms of the SoA to be reviewed, I'm worried the SP will dive in the short term.
If the SoA is approved, then I will definitely buy back in with all my profits but will have to accept I will miss some of the price rise.
Well done to all you brave hearts who are staying in and GLA.

Having bought in at 13.50 and 9.30 in 2011/12, this LTH is feeling a bit bitter at this fait accompli. It still considerably undervalues the company and is being whipped away from under our noses for a steal. Yes, my motive was to make money as well, but the oligarchs greed is beyond belief.

Corporatism and cronyism have one over long-term value and a positive future.

Other posters have mentioned how the FCA seems partly motivated by its own problems - here's a very recent news item. Let's hope their proxy appearance in court next week won't push it into anything rash for the sake of good publicity...

The Financial Conduct Authority has set out plans for a new "consumer duty" for financial firms to give more protection to their customers.

The regulator said many firms were providing good products and treating customers well but that a substantial number were still misleading customers and causing harm. One in four respondents to an FCA survey said they lacked confidence in the industry and only 35% said firms were honest and transparent.

The FCA said it would expand its rules and principles to force firms to provide better consumer protection and shift culture to the benefit of customers. To avoid regulatory action firms will have to abide by three elements:

A consumer principle on overall standards with the wording 'a firm must act in the best interests of retail clients' or 'a firm must act to deliver good outcomes for retail clients'

Three behaviours: taking all reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to customers and enable them to pursue financial goals, and acting in good faith.

More detailed rules covering communications, products and services, customer service and price and value.

The FCA has been criticised by politicians, campaigners and an independent inquiry for failing to protect consumers on matters such as the collapse of London Capital & Finance (LCF) and the treatment of small businesses by Royal

Bank of Scotland (now NatWest). The watchdog has admitted it did not do enough to protect investors LCF, prompting the government to pay compensation covering most of the £237m losses.

Sheldon Mills, the FCA's executive director of consumers and competition, said: "The package of measures we are proposing will enhance our existing rules and is designed to tackle the harms we see in financial services markets, and their causes, as well as put consumers in a stronger position to make good decisions.

"We want firms to be putting themselves in the shoes of consumers and asking 'would I be happy to be treated in the way I treat my customers?' We want consumers to be able to advance their financial wellbeing and build positive futures for themselves and their families."

The FCA has asked for comments on its proposals by 31 July.

I think the numbers are right, as there were only 12 additional creditors at today's meeting, of whom I think one was the FOS . In monetary terms, though, they may represent a disproportionate amount, possibly resulting in the c£203m in favour vote, vs the c£10m against.

Robbo13, agree. The first time I had a stop triggered, I got a much lower price than the level the stop was set at. Lost a few hundred quid and that hurt. Since then, I've never set one, though it does mean keeping a beady eye on events. This share seems quite manipulated so a stop is even riskier.

This seems very good news. 5/5 would have made me really comfortable but as Meatloaf almost opined, 4 out of 5 ain't bad! Thanks to lobo87 explanation and backed up by Screenlearner's comment about Pareto, the 80% is the important lump and that is what we have on our side. The polymer definition looks the least relevant to our case in my layman's eyes.
The fairly recent scaling back of the PTABs power and our Markman ruling means I hope that (a) an IPR won't be granted but (b) if it is, we have a better chance of a good outcome for NANO.
Thanks for all the informative posts and GLA.

I have doubts Samsung is buying NANO. Firstly, would it stop the legal action? I would guess not, otherwise any big company could buy a tiddler as a way round flagrant IP infringement and that wouldn't be justice (or am I being naive?). Secondly, they would have to pay a huge price to entice shareholders into voting in favour of a takeover, when those who have invested believing we will win the legal case are expecting a large increase and possibly multiples of the current SP, especially considering the separate recent Intel award, plus Samsung's recent court failure.

Although I'm already heavily overweight in this share, I made a tiny top-up of 20,0000 shares at 3.55p. Bearing in mind sulphides in the drilling being another positive sign (though to be confirmed), even if the initial results are disappointing, I can't help but think at least one of our prospects will turn up decent, extractable quantities to mine profitably...and that must mean the SP will be up significantly by the end of the drilling phase. The best miners are able to extract at $600-$700/oz, so even if the gold price settles about the current level of $1700-$1800, I'd imagine many miners would be queueing to buy up our rights.