London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

MET1’s original entry price was around EV1 A$0.01–0.011

The September RNS says Metals One bought 37.9m EV1 shares from Marvel Gold at A$0.011, for A$416,900, giving an initial 10.45% shareholding. It also agreed to underwrite part of EV1’s rights issue at A$0.01 for up to A$530,000, which would take MET1 to up to about 88m EV1 shares / 17.37%.

Then the 12 September RNS updated the position, showing EV1 in MET1’s investment schedule at 16.9%, with completion expected around 17 September 2025.

Later, by March 2026, MET1 increased its EV1 holding again to 157,551,667 shares / 19.29%, after subscribing for another 66,666,667 EV1 shares at A$0.015 for A$1m

Blended average A$0.01236 ish?

Metals One owns 157.55m shares in Evolution Energy Minerals, representing 19.29% of EV1. That is not a token holding. It is a sizeable strategic stake, and at EV1’s current level it already has meaningful look-through value for MET1 shareholders. More importantly, EV1 now has two separate narratives that could matter: Chikundo copper and Chilalo graphite.

The near-term excitement is obviously Chikundo. EV1 has just designed a 17-hole RC drilling programme for around 3,350m, with nine priority holes focused on the Malachite Pit and the main Chikundo anomaly. This is not random drilling. The priority holes are targeting visible copper mineralisation at surface, gossan, historical artisanal workings, and old drill holes that included copper intercepts such as 0.4m at 5.27% Cu and other intervals over 1% Cu, albeit historically and selectively sampled. The point of the new programme is to properly test whether those historical signs are part of a real system.

What interests me is that EV1 has now moved Chikundo from “interesting historical copper occurrence” to a modern drill-ready target. They have combined 1,558 new soil samples with 626 historical samples, giving a 2,184-sample dataset, and independent interpretation has defined four priority copper targets: Chikundo, Nangurugai, Chikundo North and Chikundo West. The company is increasingly describing this as a hydrothermal copper system with tellurium and bismuth pathfinders, structural controls, visible malachite/azurite and gossan. That is a much more coherent story than just old copper showings.

For MET1, the significance is simple. If Chikundo drilling delivers, MET1 gets a near one-fifth look-through exposure to that upside without needing to drill it directly. EV1 has already started to move on ASX, but I am not convinced the AIM market has fully joined the dots yet. MET1 is often illiquid and overlooked, so there may be a lag before the EV1 read-through is recognised.

The graphite side should not be ignored either. MET1 originally bought into EV1 primarily because of Chilalo, not Chikundo. Chilalo is a development-ready graphite project in Tanzania with a completed DFS/FEED work, large resource base, strong flake graphite narrative, and previously stated offtake coverage. EV1 is now talking about a staged/modular development pathway, early works, government engagement and first graphite concentrate production targeted for October 2027. Whether they deliver that remains to be seen, but graphite is increasingly strategic given ex-China supply chain pressure, tariffs, export controls and battery/anode demand.

Was it necessary to join the affected persons who are not presently cited in the application?

If it was, did the notice given, coupled with the proposed amendment to the Notice of Motion satisfy the requirement of joinder?

If not, should the application be dismissed or should it be postponed, to allow Gold Stream to rectify the joinder?

Question 1: ABSA v Naudé

Manoim J held that the Supreme Court of Appeal's (“SCA”) decision in Absa Bank Ltd v Naudé NO and Others was decisive on the first question.

In Naudé, the SCA held that:

“[i]f the creditors are not joined their position would be prejudicially affected: A business rescue plan that they had voted for would be set aside; money that they had anticipated they would receive for the following ten years to extinguish debts owing to them, would not be paid; the money that they had received, for a period of thirty months, would have to be repaid; and according to the adopted business rescue plan the benefit that concurrent creditors would have received namely a proposed dividend of 100 per cent of the debts owing to them, might be slashed to a 5,5 per cent dividend if the company is liquidated.”

Manoim J found that the same considerations applied in the present matter. By the time of the hearing, implementation of the business rescue plan was already underway. More than 500 former employees (who had waited 10 years) had received payments exceeding R40 million, while further payments had been made to other creditors. The rights and interests of these recipients would be severely prejudiced if the Barbrook adopted plan were set aside.

Question 2: Is Notice Joinder?

The second question raised by the Court was whether Gold Stream's attempts to notify affected persons sufficed to join creditors. Relying again on Naudé, the Court emphasised that mere notice of proceedings does not amount to joinder.

Affected parties are entitled to proper service whereby the Sheriff effecting service explains the nature and exigency thereof so that they may make an informed decision regarding their participation in the proceedings. The fact that Gold Stream had circulated notices and indicated an intention to amend its notice of motion is not the equivalent of joining them.

Manoim J remarked that:

“[t]he fact that creditors were told of an intention to have them joined is not the same as joining them. It is equating a possibility with a certainty; only serving to create confusion.”

Failure to Join All Affected Persons in Business Rescue Litigation - Brenna Reichenberg

June 9, 2026

The recent decision of Gold Stream (Pty) Ltd v Siyakhula Sonke Empowerment Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others 145534/24 provides an important reminder to insolvency and restructuring practitioners of the stringent procedural requirements governing business rescue litigation.

The judgment handed down by Manoim J on 29 May 2026 reinforces the fundamental principle that where a party seeks to challenge an adopted business rescue plan, all affected persons whose rights may be impacted by the relief sought must be properly joined to the proceedings.

The Background

The litigation concerns three mining companies in business rescue:

Barbrook Mines (Pty) Ltd;

Makonjwaan Imperial Mining Company (Pty) Ltd; and

Vantage Goldfields (Pty) Ltd.

The original proceedings involved an application seeking the conversion of the business rescue proceedings of the three mining companies into liquidation. Gold Stream, itself a creditor, successfully intervened in those proceedings and initially opposed the liquidation application.

Intertwined within the conversion application, Gold Stream then launched three separate substantive applications under the same case number, namely:

An application to remove the existing business rescue practitioner;

An application to declare the appointment of another business rescue practitioner valid; and

An application to set aside a business rescue plan adopted in respect of Barbrook on 16 April 2026 (“the set aside application”).

The set aside application is the subject of the above mentioned judgment.

The Preliminary Objection: Non-Joinder

Before the merits of the set aside application could be considered, three of the respondents raised a preliminary point that Gold Stream had failed to join all affected persons properly to the set aside application as required by the Companies Act, 2008.

The significance of this objection lies in the definition of "affected person" in section 128(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2008, which includes:

shareholders;

creditors;

registered trade unions; and

employees of a company under business rescue.

In response to the non-joinder objection, Gold Stream attempted to cure the defect by sending notifications to hundreds of affected persons through various means, including SMS and email, and sought to amend its notice of motion to cite "Affected Persons mentioned in Annexure X", a twelve-page list consisting largely of former employees.

Three Questions Before the Court

The Court raised three questions in respect of the non-joinder objection:

Https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/uranium_data/MD00335_1.pdf

On the Ground Hog claim there are approximately 400 feet of short tunnels and

drifts in the rim outcrop, several old stopes covering approximately 4100 square feet,

and open pits which were mined in the past, covering approximately 9800 square feet,

all of which work was done in the upper horizons of the Salt Wash. The Company has

no detailed information regarding the quan ti ty or quality of the ore so mined.

Probing of '20 holes drilled on the Ground Hog No.4 by Four Corners Uranium Cor-

poration has disclosed indications of mineralization of commercial grade; 29 holes con-

tain indications of mineralization below commercial grade at depths ranging from 271

feet to 327 feet, and 18 holes were barren. The indications of mineralization of commer-

cial grade were concentrated iI]. three separated areas on this claim covering approximately

5200 square feet, 1900 square feet, and 7000 square feet, respectively. The outer bound-

ary of the second area mentioned is approximately 200 feet east of the outer boundaries

of the first two areas mentioned.

Probing of 17 holes drilled on the Ground Hog No. 5 by Four Corners Uranium

Corporation disclosed indications of mineralization of commercial grade; indications of

mineralization below commercial grade in 28 holes at depths ranging from 276 feet to 370

feet, and 18 holes were barren. The indications of mineralization of commercial grade

were concentrated in three widely separated areas covering 16,000 square feet, 16,000

square feet, and 7,000 square feet, respectively. The first area mentioned is in the south-

east corner of the claim. The second area mentioned lies approximately 250 feet west

of the first area, and the third area mentioned lies approximately 300 feet northwest of

the second area mentioned. The approximate wrighted average thickness of the mineral-

ized material in the areas mentioned is6 feet.

Probing of 8 holes drilled on the Ground Hog No.3 by Four Corners Uranium Cor-

poration disclosed indications of mineralization of commercial grade; of 16 holes indica-

9

tions of mineralization below commercial grade at depths ranging from 312 feet to 327

feet, and 9 holes were barren. The indications of mineralization of commercial grade were

concentrated in two areas covering approximately 15,000 square feet and 19,000 square

feet, respectively, approximately 75 feet apart so that they could be worked by drifts

f rom one shaft. etc etc etc

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/uranium-vanadium-mining-milling-map-colorado/

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/THR/high-grade-uranium-and-vanadium-assays-results/16354166

One would assume that the Section 11 process for Barbrook is now in motion and awaiting DMRE determination. That appears to be the key regulatory gate for any Barbrook-only transaction, whether the structure is a transfer of the Barbrook mining right/assets or a change of control of the Barbrook Mines entity itself.

One could also assume, by now, that the MIMCO/Lily side is being dealt with separately, with the creditor vote pending in relation to the competing bid/proposal for that asset. If correct, that would suggest the BRP process has evolved into a split approach: Barbrook on one track, MIMCO/Lily on another.

The legal debate around that split will no doubt centre on the historic interdependence of the Vantage companies’ business rescue plans. Previous court/business rescue material stated that the Vantage companies’ plans were interrelated and that the success of one depended on the other, with any order affecting VGL also potentially affecting Barbrook and MIMCO. That language is clearly important and may still be relied upon by anyone opposing a clean separation.

However, the counterpoint is that if the BRP is now actively putting a split approach to creditors, then the split is not necessarily an attempted bypass of the rescue framework. It may be the very mechanism by which the earlier interdependence issue is being regularised. In other words, the question may no longer be whether Barbrook can be separated in principle, but whether the separation is properly approved and implemented through the BRP process.

Section 11 then becomes central. The Vantage / Arqomanzi judgment confirmed that ministerial consent is required not only for direct transfers of mining rights, but also for indirect changes of control higher up the chain. Barbrook Mines and MIMCO were treated as the relevant mining-right holders, and the SCA held that a change of control at Vantage level triggered Section 11 in respect of the mining rights held by those entities.

That makes the precise scope of the current Section 11 application critical. If it is genuinely Barbrook-only — limited to the Barbrook mining right and/or the Barbrook Mines entity — then the regulatory case looks much cleaner. If, however, the transaction somehow involves control of VGL, VGSA or the wider Vantage structure, then MIMCO/Lily could potentially be pulled back into the analysis.

Https://www.sedarplus.ca/csa-party/records/document.html?id=999b228ffefff97b43ce0e0e46b8cc75888ee4e7552dce63bc7e5baa7915d4d6

Fidelity Minerals Announces Closing of First Tranche of Non-Brokered

Private Placement Financing

Vancouver, BC, June 8, 2026 – Fidelity Minerals Corp. (TSX-V: FMN | FSE: S5GM | SSE:

MNYC) (“Fidelity Minerals” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that it has closed the

first tranche of the non-brokered private placement financing (the “Private Placement”),

previously announced in its News Releases dated May 4, 2026 and May 21, 2026. In the first

tranche, the Company issued 3,160,000 units (each, a “Unit”) at $0.20 per Unit for gross proceeds

of $632,000. Each Unit consists of one common share (each, a “Share”) and one-half transferable

share purchase warrant (each, a “Warrant”) with each whole Warrant exercisable into one

additional Share at $0.30 per Share until June 8, 2028. If the closing price of the Company’s

common shares equals or exceeds $0.60 for 10 consecutive trading days, the Company may

accelerate the expiry date of the warrants by press release, after which the warrants will expire 30

days later. The Private Placement has been conditionally approved by the TSX Venture Exchange

(the “TSX-V”) but remains subject to final TSX-V approval. The Company intends to complete

additional tranches of the Private Placement.

In connection with the first tranche, the Company paid cash finders’ fees of $42,840 and issued

214,200 broker warrants (the “Broker Warrants”) with each Broker Warrant exercisable into one

additional Share at $0.30 per Share until June 8, 2028. If the closing price of the Company’s

common shares equals or exceeds $0.60 for 10 consecutive trading days, the Company may

accelerate the expiry date of the warrants by press release, after which the warrants will expire 30

days later.

The securities issued under the Private Placement, the Broker Warrants, and the Shares issuable

upon exercise of the Warrants and Broker Warrants are subject to a statutory hold period expiring

on October 9, 2026.

The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the Financing to advance its Peruvian exploration

and community relations programs, and general working capital.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Chilli300

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Chilli300

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending