Member Info for Enki

If we do get suspended again, it would save us all this daily tripe. We' ll come back at 25p and that will see the back of a lot us here.

I'll deffo keep some back for £2.50 and contain my posting.

Bring it on. Now worries

Aerry , since I did not receive the email from Tim at Investor relations, may I suggest you email the FCA. to; whistle@fca.org.uk

I have done a template for you you might like to use it or not at all etc. as below;

To the FCA Market Monitoring Team,

I am writing to report a potential breach of the listing rules by GSTechnologies Ltd ("GST.L" or "the Company").

Company Details:

Name: GSTechnologies Ltd

Ticker/ISIN: GST.L]

Listing: Main Market, London Stock Exchange

Place of Incorporation: British Virgin Islands (BVI)

Nature of the Breach:

The Company has failed to hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the financial year ending 31st March 2025. The statutory deadline for a public company to hold its AGM is within six months of the financial year-end, which was 30th September 2025 (UK Companies Act 2006, s336). No AGM has been held or announced to date.

Evidence of Company's Position:

On [Date you received reply], the Company's Investor Relations, via Mr. Tim Metcalfe of IFC Advisory, provided the following rationale for the delay:

"The rules you reference are UK Companies Act provisions, not listed company ones, that don’t apply to GST.L as a BVI company."

This statement appears to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Company's obligations. Despite its BVI incorporation, as an LSE-listed entity, GST is directly subject to the UK Companies Act and FCA Listing Rules, which mandate the holding of an AGM.

The Company is therefore in clear breach of its obligations, and its official communication suggests it does not intend to comply based on an incorrect legal interpretation.

I request that the FCA investigates this matter and ensures the Company complies with its AGM obligations as required for its listing status.

Yours faithfully,

[A Shareholder of GSTechnologies Ltd]

Billy , I apologise but perhaps the Groknasty , John Doe can disabuse us?

Being registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) does not allow it to ignore the rules of the London Stock Exchange (LSE).

Why It Can't Avoid or Forever Delay an AGM

The company is subject to two sets of rules, and the LSE rules are the ones that force it to hold an AGM.

LSE Listing Rules Trump BVI Flexibility:

While BVI law is flexible, the LSE requires all listed companies to follow UK corporate governance standards.

A key standard for a UK Public Limited Company (PLC) is that it must hold an AGM within 6 months of its financial year-end.

Consequences are Severe:

For the Company: Failure to hold an AGM is a breach of listing rules. The FCA (UK regulator) and the LSE can take action, including fines and ultimately removing the company's stock from the market entirely (delisting).

For the Directors: Directors can be held personally liable, facing significant fines and even disqualification from acting as a director in the UK.

In your example, the suspension was a punishment for the late accounts, not a way out. To get re-listed and stay listed, the company had to publish its accounts and would still be obligated to hold its overdue AGM. They can delay it by failing to produce accounts (and getting suspended), but they cannot escape the requirement forever without losing their listing and facing serious penalties.

That's me done for the day read the noise tonight.

This all adds spice to the mix. Without getting too carried away , we might be lined up for T/O the minute MiCA is authorised.

Good things come to those who wait. John Smith is needing diapers.

...even if it is just the AGM notice

...and we have recently appointed a Lithuanian Director:

Agnė Penikienė, the CEO / Manager of GS Fintech UAB

Lloyd , I'll join you in the vote no

Lithuania adopted a shorter MiCA transition period. While MiCA generally became applicable for CASPs on December 30, 2024, and stablecoin provisions on June 30, 2024, Lithuania initially set a deadline for all Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) to obtain a MiCA license by June 1, 2025.

However, the final transition deadline for existing CASPs registered before December 30, 2024, in Lithuania has been extended to January 1, 2026. After this date, providing crypto-asset services without a MiCA license will be illegal.

The Bank of Lithuania oversees the MiCA licensing process. Challenges reported in preliminary applications include incomplete documentation, unclear fund sources, and concerns about shareholder/manager reputations.

Lithuanian requirements include having at least one senior manager physically present in Lithuania and shareholders with a 10% or greater stake providing detailed bank statements and transaction histories.

Could this appearance on the share register recently be related (speculation):

Securities Services Nominees Limited

245,260,678

10.55%

GLA

He's lost a shed load here and he is just "BITTER".

Perhaps trading is not for him. He should go and do good charitable works with what money he has left.

I don't think anyone would reply to hundreds of emails from "John Smith" not even Tim. Give him some credit -DOE (sic).

Billy or was it John Smith ?

Morning Massive.

Was there a "sanity clause " in the contract, because if there wasn't his kids wont be getting any prezzies this Xmas.

I was thinking of the firm of Sioux , Grabbit & Runne (sic) might take on the business pro bono for the laugh.

Billy , do you know a good lawyer? I know a guy who might need one.

I think he has gone too far with trying to be smart. Probably laid himself open to having his pants sued off him. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

AI is only as smart as the person inputting and interpreting the result.

Billy you hit the nail on the head. AI is not smart it's only as smart as the data entry clerk (Chibs). The narrative that Chibs has built is alarming and someone who has the ear of Tim and or the BOD should get onto this pronto.

GST sent an arbitration notice to the sellers of Semnet.

The reason is an alleged breach of non-compete clauses and breach of employee obligations.

The goal is to recover profits for Semnet.

This is a straightforward, factual corporate disclosure.

The Poster's Narrative: Connecting Unrelated Dots

The poster is using other facts to create a context that implies something more sinister. Here’s how:

Fact: There was a 2023 SICC lawsuit where Semnet (the company GST bought) sued Ypsilon and won.

Fact: Two directors of Ypsilon (the company that lost the lawsuit) are former Semnet employees.

Speculative Narrative: The poster strongly implies that these former employees (who are the "Sellers" GST is now arbitrating against) set up Ypsilon to compete with Semnet before the sale, and that GST's board foolishly bought a company (Semnet) that was already in this legal mess.

The Problem with this Narrative:

The GST arbitration notice is about breaches of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 5 December 2023. This refers to actions taken after GST bought the company, or at least breaches of warranties given at the time of the sale.

The poster's narrative incorrectly or misleadingly conflates this with the 2023 lawsuit, which was a separate commercial dispute between Semnet and a third party (Ypsilon) over a specific contract. The SICC judgment was a win for Semnet, proving the strength of its contracts, not a liability.

The GST arbitration notice is factual.

The poster is using selective facts (the SICC case, director backgrounds) to construct a narrative that the Semnet acquisition was flawed and the current arbitration is linked to that old dispute. This connection is speculative, misleading, and not supported by the stated reason for the new arbitration (breach of the SPA's non-compete). The intent appears to be to portray GST's management as negligent and the acquisition as problematic, which goes beyond the established facts.

Now GROK OFF

The narrative you are questioning—which links the 2023 judgment, the director backgrounds, the struck-off company, and the 2024/25 arbitration into a single, coherent story of a dubious investment—is largely speculative.

It uses verified facts (the judgment, the directors' past employment, the company strike-off) as building blocks.

It connects them using AI and you only get the answer with the information fed in. AI maybe smart even smarter than Chaegrok, so it is easy to see how to build up a speculative case.

These matters should be put to the BOD.