Member Info for dsaf

They also told multiple times that they couldn't issue treasury shares for over 14 months, yet he now has them when a court case is issued.. surprising isn't it.

All as bad as each other.

Ofcourse they have.. been given what they wanted on a golden platter.

Shareholders are the vest least of their priority list now.

You are also assuming that that RNS is factual and correct unlike others which haven't been which has now been proven with the global Vision lien.

"Tom wasn't named directly but the only two directors they could have been referring to are Evans and Olof."

But you wrote:

"The Insolvency Service are currently investigation Tom Evans regarding Resource Bonds 11 Ltd and the missing £2m. That could result in him being disqualified as a director. Tom has not responded to the liquidator's questions."

So, is it Tom, or isn't it Tom? You we're pretty clear on your first post at 0755 today.

The Investor calls were nothing but a set up for the yes vote at the AGM in my opinion. Not a single thing has happened but they have promised and all they have done is issued more clns.

To chalk quells are now tied up in what will be a protracted Legal battle On something they don't even have leases on As they lapsed. And the Ukraine blurb on something that RMD own less than 5% on the lease is just pie in the sky, in my opinion.

If they're that intent I'm giving shareholders transparency and value I would love to know why they are decimating the share price by issuing clns at a quarter of the value.

Hardly Zag, it was left for Lunn to sort out on Tom's departure. Lunn did zero to amend or reprieve the leases.

You are correct Zag, Mr Lunn was a total failure allowing them to lapse.

They need to renegotiate the leases, they have lapsed, nothing has been said on this since 23rd April... Mavricky went to texas in April.. not a peep since. If the leases can't be negotiated, its game over for chalk.

Ok, are you being obstructively dumb now? It's the official texas court system website, not some godaddy user created website. Open your eyes for once.

So your saying, or the spinks bat phone is saying that because nobel is 100% owned by PPP, the lien against nobel is nothing to do with PPP................ ?

Zag, I did reply previously in the now deleted thread. A filing has been made against a substituary wholly owned by PPP.. made against the very asset they are trying to get shareholders to take the bait on.

Of course they would have received paperwork from the courts in filing.. standard legal stuff.

Zag, well spotted.. i've checked again, and it's worse.. it was 9th April!!

In terms of knowing or not at the AGM, the case was filed with the court on the 3rd May 2026 at 13:06.

The AGM was the 6th May.

Without question, they were aware.

The value is access to a market listing to raise money on the open market. And at only 500,000 pounds so far committed it's like finding the Holy Grail for RMD.

Thanks for the free legal advice herpes.

However it remains my personal opinion of the situation.

They've known about this since before the AGM so I don't think an RNS would do anything for transparency.

Being* paymaster*

The share Bean suspended makes absolutely no difference whatsoever it didn't stop your pain master leaving a trail of destruction in his wake did it.

I look forward to your conclusions.

Zag, no one said that but given the evidence presented to you in the court case it is factually correct that the deal was valid.