Member Info for FoMo

Streets

SH are the corporate lawyers.

Taylor Partners are an unknown entity and my question was are they a firm that acted for Mano? If they were its not a good sign IMHO. If not why is Mano suing them as it doesn't, at first glance, seem to fit the business model of assignment from liquidators?

Probably nothnig to worry about.

HTTps://caseboard.io/cases/2b9a992f-890d-42c1-9375-b030801f26fd

;

Vince

Do read the form 8k and related letter agreement. It looks just like the classic death spiral funding.

The oint is there is little or no money if you read the SEC docs and it is certainly not for Utah.

"We’ve been quite prudent with our cash during this period whilst minimising any scheduled delays, hence our project expenditures are well below the original budget that we prepared earlier in the year, or earlier in our financial year rather."

OR in other words... we have been paying our salaries and overheads but very little on any of the projects.

Is there enough cash even to supply the MMU to Atwerp? don't think there is enough cash

As for Utah what is aid just doesn't make sense or add up.

"So, our current expectations are that the drilling permits will be approved in the next few months to allow them to commence drilling in Q2, and we also expect that they’ll be raising the project finance required for at least one of their projects to kick start the site license and supply agreement that we have already in place with them during the second quarter of this year."

OR in other words. no permits until after QED's year end so all talk of Q" is incomprehensible, and the VALKOR/ECOTEC?TRIO websites and press shows it is all smoke and mirrors with very little cash in evidence.

All is not what it seems. Trio seems to have less cash on hand than QED and cautions its investors that it might fall into the "Penny stock" rules.

Read the SEC filings for Trio. hTTps://ir.trio-petroleum.com/sec-filings/

Not least all the gory details in the Option agreement itself. God Bless the USA for its transparency rules.

Did someone call my name and ask for input today?

How about a book on the share price at the end of the year?

I think VALKOR is well and truly dead so far as cash to QED is concerned partiuclarly following its reverse takeover into Eqotec.

Mine is 1.3p (just above placing price) as posted on ADVFN.

HF

Valkor and Ecoteq was a reverse takeover. Anyone interested should keep an eye on the entire news page.

https://ecoteqenergy.com/news

Still seems to be a long way off.

If I was HSBC I would be taking a cautious view on value ascribed to Cartel cases when that number is put into the Loan/NA covenant ratios. That must be restricting the amount of loan that can be dran at the moment.

Perhaps selling off the o/s receivables from last year's "big case" might be an idea.

The problem with all these valuations for asset/profit purposes is that Tax has to be paid upfront. Add the o/s big case and Cartel monies and its got to be £5m on the more than £20m total. All of which has increased the bank loan and is costing 8.7%p.a.

Tommy.

Comment at min 36.53 that MANO have retained a "debt advisory firm (name is rather indistinct" to advise.." on bank covenants.

My question at 42.20 as to whether undrawn bank faciliites are adversely affected (ie restricted and not available) by covenants on present net assets was, I thought, "sidestepped".

Quartely data on covenants.

I can't see things getting significantly better until Truck claims resolved as it's more than 1/3rd total current assets. MANO wouold love to run faster but is probably paying the price of the long "puff" on the value of the Cartel cases.

Can't see a divi under present Bank facility covenants.

Censorship is alive and well on LSE.

Someone is very"frit" -was it Spike Milligan who said that?

Forensic

Beg to differ.

"Half to creditors" isn't so. It goes to pay IP and their solicitors for what is on the clock before assignment to MANO.

Da_Matser

Your comment indicates that you are an IP or one of their solicitors.

Forensics

Glad to see some cogent argument in your second post rather than the abusive rhetoric of your first.

The fact remains that the MANO scheme relies on solicitors costs being removed from Court supervision or indeed that of anyone else. Stephen Baister (Director and still serving Judge) and Mrs Frances Coulson (Director of The Insolvency Service and partner of solicitors who have been paying Mr Baister as a consultant for years) confirmed this in public a year ago at the TRI conference.

Do run the numbers on the TRAX Aggregates case and you will see that the MANO scheme is stated to achieve nothing for the creditors.

Your reference to the Jackson reforms relates to the now prohibited legal fee arrangements.

I agree there is sometimes a case for the MANO type scheme but it is not the "all IPs should use MANO all the time" as promoted by Messrs Baister and Cooklin (see MANO presentations). Simpler cases do not need and should not use MANO at a 50% of the net recoveries (legals are often 15-20% off the top) as MANO's USP is to threaten the miscreant with outspending resources which if a lot like the SLAPP injunctions so beloved but misused by Kleptocrats.

MANO's BBL scheme is a case in point - a sophisticaed Bailiff type debt collection arrangement and a good use of threats against self evident bad boys and at no costs to the lender (who is not the general body of creditors.

IMO to be sustainable MANO needs more transparency and accountability.

Tommy

My post on ADVFN over a year ago (copied below) gives some guidance for further research. The TRAXX case is now more than 3 years old (one of the oldest of MANO's aged date sheet) and the Court records show no activity since issue.

Keep at the back of your mind that the MANO business model removes all MANO and IP legal fees from court scrutiny as provided for in the Insolvency Act and that Eversheds told HMRC that IP and legal fees are deliberately overstated and overcharged by 25% ish..

Conditional Fee and ATE will almost always be the best option for creditors.. IMO the MANO model is structurally flawed and unsustainable until they agree to have their legal fees subject to assessment (100% of that gain should then go to the IP and not split with MANO.

In the meantime the gravy train for IPs and Solicitors rumbles on.

COPY

"The adage "once bitten twice shy" comes to mind. Best to understand the whole business as far as one can.

The big "lost cause" had final order of the Court filed on 8 July, including the "consequential matters" (leave to appeal costs etc), after the judgment was handed down on 24 June. IMHO Mano were obliged to report it to shareholders more than 2 months before they did, and certainly on the date the order was sealed (which gave them 2 weeks to research it) and there was never any possible appeal to the High Court as you seem to think, because the judgment was made by a Judge. There was simply no excuse for delay. If I had bought after 8 July I would be tempted to seek redress.

The Mano business model is simply one of making threats. Recoveries benefit mostly Mano, IPs and their solicitors which is Mano's USP. Creditors get the bits left over - if any.

All Mano's cases can also be seen by typing "manolete" into the search box on

There is a lot of activity.

Any interested shareholder can then follow up on the CE-file site to the publicly available documents (fees £11 or £22).

The Traxx (Aggregates) case (issued 1 September 2022) is an interesting one to follow given that the Administrator reports (per Companies House) that there is unlikely to be any payment to unsecured creditors, and its mostly about his (personal 25%) and his solicitors accrued fees. Mano paid £10k upfront and an undisclosed share of any recoveries in Summer 2020.

The Zipp International case is an interesting one. Settlement £800k. Mano took £369,470.05. Claim is publicly available which shows the amount claimed to enable comparison against the achieved settlement. It was a funded case. IP and solicitors were the principal beneficiaries of the remaining ex-Mano funds which is the Mano business model exemplified.

Will be interesting to see how the future plays out in this lawyers and accountants gravy train arena. Will/can the Mano shareholders benefit as much as they think? Interesting to wonder if the shareholders returns will exceed the payments to creditors.

I think I heard the comment that MANO is now staring to reach out for settlement agreements on the Truck cases.

Interesting comment on how MANO's business model is based on making "threats" that others can't or won't make.

I still think the numbers show that funding the IP is nearltyalways a better option for creditors.

.... and the Chairman says we we have CSObioMSAR to look forward to. (p16 of the accounts)

Any other thoughts on suitable prefixes?

Reopened not yet resolved

Oldbutnowisa

Trying not to get the post removed again, I referenced penultimate para in 1st August RNS re PACCAR judgment and that I am told there is some activitiy that might be considered inconsistent with that statement.

Hope you get to see this before its removed by whomsever doesn't want transparency.

Tommy. Perhaps we'll get an update as someone has removed my post. What I said was and remains true.