Member Info for FreeBuffett

@ Adamsky, fair enough. I must admit that I’ve glossed over the £15 part of the agreement mainly because I couldn’t quite square in my own mind what it actually meant. You state it is an AAG spend, a war chest perhaps, to use in pursuit of the claim. The wording of the agreement as seen in the RNS states securing £15m suggesting something gained from TZM/Moz Gov. If the former then I struggle with the risk v reward for AAG with £24m (admittedly the lower end) less the initial purchase of £2m plus the “war chest” £15m, i.e. £7m. If the latter how do AAG confirm securing £15m without a completed bit or some sort of agreed settlement. Very happy to be educated if someone has a clear understanding of this part of the agreement.

£2m from AAG adds to PFP's assets/working capital/etc and could simplistically be described as adding 0.32p to the share price at current share levels but in reality this will not happen. I see there being a small initial SP rise on the final agreement (this is against the old adage buy on rumour sell on news) and then a fall back to levels maybe 10-15% above current. For me the value of the £2m is what PFP do with it, presumably it will be put to good effect building the "battery" business for which I hope/presume some ducks are lined up already. What comes after from the AAG BIT is a bonus and whilst it would be great to see TZM and the Moz Gov roll over, they will simply dead bat this until the final second of the final minute of the final hour just before any judge awards compensation/reparation to AAG and hence to PFP in line with the agreement. Remember this is AIM, Foreign Governments, exploration etc. etc. PFP / AAG will need to be pragmatic in their approach and what rewards it might bring. Investment companies (which is what PFP will effectively be at least at the start) rarely, if ever, see the asset value reflected in the SP, ask anyone who owns Cadence. Any LTH who hasn't averaged down severely over the past years is likely to be well under water and I see a modest rise in SP sparking sells as they move to get some holiday pocket money and to offset CGT.

…. but AIM rules (17) state that changes in holdings to be above or below 3% (TR1) should be notified to the market. Nothing from Trew or Klaus yet despite being removed from the PFP website. Perhaps not PFP’s responsibility to do the admin but for two experienced business people it surprises me that the simple stuff is not done.

Not me.

The threat to the Moz Gov and TZM is now the BIT claim by AAG. I’d be surprised, but happy, if any approach for a settlement is made before the BIT claim is placed.

I’m not sure what the required time frame is for TR1 but nothing yet on the Trew or Eckhoff dilution from 3% despite removal from the PFP website. The site shows the Jennings dilution.

I don’t have access but interesting headline,

SOUTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA ROUND-UP: NEW CASES AND DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING KENYA, LESOTHO, MOZAMBIQUE AND ZIMBABWE

https://www.iareporter.com/articles/southern-and-eastern-africa-round-up-new-cases-and-developments-involving-kenya-lesotho-mozambique-and-zimbabwe/

From the PFP BIT update 29/09/22 " .... Entering into the Acquisition Agreement will be conditional upon shareholder approval pursuant to AIM Rule 15, which, in turn, may lead to the Company being classified as an AIM Rule 15 cash shell ... ". Correct that PFP have been looking at Graphite and Lithium option but they have a certain time to get these over the line. I've trusted the BoD so far so no need to stop that now, just a comment on the continued risk of this position.

“ ….. Within six months of becoming an AIM Rule 15 cash shell, the AIM company must make an acquisition or acquisitions which constitutes a reverse takeover under rule 14. For the purposes of this rule only, becoming an investing company pursuant to rule 8 (including the associated raising of funds as specified in rule 8) will be treated as a reverse takeover and the provisions of rule 14 will apply including the requirement to publish an admission document.
Where an AIM company became an investing company (pursuant to rule 15) prior to 1 January 2016, the requirements of rule 15 set out in the AIM Rules for Companies (May 2014) will continue to apply. Accordingly, if such a company does not make an acquisition or acquisitions which constitutes a reverse takeover under rule 14 or otherwise fails to implement its investing policy to the satisfaction of the Exchange within twelve months of becoming an investing company in accordance with that rule, the Exchange will suspend trading in the AIM securities pursuant to rule 40. …. “ (https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/AIM%20Rules%20for%20Companies%20%2801012021%29_1.pdf ).

True Mbdd, a good case study of the disparity between MCap and asset value is Cadence.

There are many companies on AIM where to asset value is not reflected in the SP.

In the context of the misappropriation, against a government and being a cash strapped minnow the board have performed with great skill and nerve. Still much to do but hopefully far more straightforward in the future.

It’s only 04:07am in Delaware.

12.94% turnout, looks like Align didn’t vote.

Those that can be ****d to vote very much in favour.

Results of the AGM were timed at 16:14pm on the day of the meeting.

Share holders funds is what can be redistributed to the share holders when a company winds up, simplistically assets minus liabilities. Working capital is the everyday funding which the business runs on and comes from various sources not just share issues, loans for example. I get your frustration but these nonsense comments on the way you perceive the board frivolously carries out its duties when there is clearly a requirement for diligence after a GM vote astounds me. If you needed to know so soon perhaps you should have attended the GM.

Can you explain how the shareholders can buy the Board lunch ?

@Poppyseed. I read these details yesterday but couldn’t decide whether or not this was significant to the IMM situation. I noticed that there had been similar announcements at Companies House in the past which I took as being related to a change of registered address. However, I could see sense in squaring off the admin.

For me the interesting figure will be the turnout. Although it may be stating the bleeding obvious it’s worth remembering that if the motion is passed it is the will of the majority.