Member Info for FreeBuffett

Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention but today on Interactive Investor I notice than instead of zero value during the trading day it now states a 14p/82p spread ?

@LFM, MM15. Free shares, are you sure ? Not shares in lieu of advisory payments with associated warrants that are paid for in a normal warrant scenario. The benefit of warrants is not so good these days as the sp has generally been lower than the warrant price.

@Adamsky. My understanding of the cash shell, and as always very happy to be educated, is that this only occurs if PFP sell IMM and has not purchased or invested in another business. The shell would have no business but quite a bit of cash. I guess that the shell status stands until PFP purchase a licence as they have been talking about in the graphene sector. AIM rules on shells will add some hoops which might mean trading because difficult if not possible, I guess until a license/business if bought or perhaps another company reverses into PFP.

Interesting to consider perhaps that Trew’s and Eckhof’s holding will go sub TR1 if the placing goes ahead.

@T123 from where do you get the figure " over a billion shares in issue" ?

Considering the last AGM voting on 22 June only 31% of holders voted. Between them Align (11.4%), Trew (3.2%), Ekhof (3.0%, still holding, my bad) and Taylor (2.7%) hold 20.3%. Additionally, I believe there are a handful of close to but sub-TR1 PI's. This points to huge apathy from PI's in general to vote which has every chance of being repeated in the vote for the conditional placing. With this as background It would take a super human effort by the BOD to rally enough PI's to out weigh those listed above (presumably less Taylor who would vote for). Therefore I am led to think that that these major holders must have been canvassed in some way prior to the RNS, although as Jonathan Summers found out Align will go their own way. Can't believe that the BOD have no idea which way the vote will go.

@LFM you will have your chance to vote against the issue at the general meeting. Keep some powder dry for your embolism after the vote.

Top find Dip666

@LFM I think you greatly under estimate the effort and skill of the BOD, and especially Peter Taylor more recently, in keeping PFP in the game. Poor management would have been to roll over at anytime during the years since the licenses where misappropriated. I will not tire of saying that patience and diligence will win the day and if these are traits that any investor does not possess or support then they should seriously look to have their money somewhere else. AIM is the wild west of investing and full of disappointed investors who entered with £ signs in there eyes when they would have been better suited to FTSE 100 tracker funds.

OS3, why would the board mention anything about the AAG agreement other that what they have done already. We know what the situation is , PFP simply move from a period of exclusivity to a period on non-exclusivity. I wouldn’t expect PFP to announce a finish to AAG until they have another suitor signed up. Your impatience is staggering given this is a holiday period, the misappropriation history and AIM. I’m chilled about being wrong and chilled about the current situation. Reeds that bend in the wind tend to last longer that those that are too rigid.

I don’t think it matters whether or not it’s a trading day, PFP can make an announcement on their web site 24/7. When the option was given I think those involved would have realised it was a holiday period and apparently didn’t consider this to be at any importance, otherwise they would have chosen a different period. As alway patience is the key here, no point in getting one’s knickers in a twist because there wasn’t a 07:00:01am RNS.

… the Christmas sherry trifle is finished and some heads are cleared.

Perhaps they are and are quite happy with developments. I don’t expect them to do anything for the benefit of the smaller investor, why should they. DYOR and every man for themselves.

There are three fundamental aspects that investors need with Zephyr. The first is patience, the second is patience and the third is patience. Those bickering tend to lack in one of these three aspects.

@Looking… interested to see the case details you refer to. I posted a while ago that I could only find two BIT claims, both of which were not proved. You details would help the general picture.

@Adamsky nice question. I feel for A to happen (but it would a settlement with AAG not PFP) B must happen first. I imagine that the Mozambique Government are keenly watching AAG’s next move. Presumably an extension of the exclusivity would mean the parties are close to an agreement. This could prompt the MG to directly contact PFP but the opening gambit of such a move has been clearly stated to MG in the PFP/AAG agreement.

@kopfkissen you wouldn’t know the Charrería stars either but Mexicans would, which I think is more to the point.

Anybody looked into AAG ? Info is sparce. I'm struggling at the moment with the RNS update statement which includes " ...Pathfinder announces that it has entered into an option agreement with Acumen Advisory Group LLC ("AAG"), an asset recovery specialist incorporated in Delaware, USA, with a track record of international claim enforcement, ... " and the details on ( https://www.bizapedia.com/de/acumen-advisory-group-llc.html ) which states the company is 1 year and 3 months old. They must be good to have established a track record of international claims in that time. There's this also ... https://www.acumenadvisorygroup.com but no mention of the USA side. I guess all will be revealed before the 27/12/22.

https://globalarbitrationreview.com/review/the-middle-eastern-and-african-arbitration-review/2022/article/mozambique

https://www.plmj.com/xms/files/v1/newsletters/2014/Outubro/Arbitration_in_Mozambique_in_the_oil_and_mines_sectors.pdf

Current company structure allows for PFP to sell IMM. No need for a new company.