Member Info for Fronteracheckin

You haven't noticed not a single trade in the last ten mins and you can't quote to buy or sell? Think we just figured out this guy is a bot

Can't sell?

Short lived drop? 4 months?

I'm the source of your headache? Not the absolute sheer inconsistency with diamond numbers from a company you invested in?

3. Sequencing of RNS disclosures suggests information may have been withheld until questioned

The company released:

17 Nov: tender composition

18 Nov: shareholder Q&A (directly addressing community concerns)

25 Nov: tender results, revealing extremely low realised value

The timing strongly implies the Q&A was reactive, not proactive, despite questions relating to previously disclosed numbers.

This raises the question of whether the company was already aware of tender outcomes or valuations when earlier RNS announcements were made.

---

4. Pattern of repeated equity raises despite earlier assurances

Over the course of 2025, the company raised:

~£2.7m (beneficiation raise)

~£2m (debt extension / working capital raise)

earlier placings also occurred

Yet earlier interviews repeatedly asserted:

diamond proceeds would be sufficient to repay debt

mines were placed on care and maintenance pending diamond sale

AIM Rule 11 requires disclosure of financial difficulty or funding shortfall.

If management knew the diamonds would not cover the debt, this should have been disclosed before multiple discounted placings.

---

Request to FCA

Given the above, I respectfully request that the FCA review:

1. Whether Vassst Resources’ recent RNS announcements comply with:

AIM Rule 11 (timely and accurate disclosure)

Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) (misleading information)

2. Whether public interviews given by the CEO were:

materially inconsistent with formal announcements

likely to mislead investors about asset value and funding requirements

3. Whether the diamond parcel classification and carat discrepancies constitute a failure to provide accurate information to the market.

4. Whether “in line with expectations” pricing statements were fair, based on prior public guidance.

I have already raised these concerns with the company’s NOMAD and IR team, but the responses have not resolved the inconsistencies, and further discrepancies have since emerged.

I would be happy to provide:

links to every relevant RNS

interview transcripts

a chronological timeline

evidence of contradictory statements

correspondence with the company

copies of earlier announcements for comparison

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,

[Your Name]

Private Investor – Vasssst Resources plc

To:

market.abuse@fca.org.uk

listingtransactions@fca.org.uk

primary.market@fca.org.uk

Those are the FCA contacts.

Aim regulator and nomad

aimregulation@lseg.com

info@strandhanson.co.uk

Those are the 5 email addresses if you have any concerns, you should be contacting.

Dear FCA Market Conduct Team,

I am writing as a private investor to request that the FCA review a number of issues relating to Vast Resources plc (AIM: VASSST), particularly in relation to the accuracy, completeness and consistency of market disclosures made by the company over recent months. These issues have had a material impact on investor decision-making and appear to raise genuine concerns around whether the company’s RNS announcements are compliant with MAR obligations and AIM Rule 11 on timely and accurate disclosure.

This is not a trading complaint, nor am I seeking compensation from the FCA.

I am requesting a regulatory review due to:

significant discrepancies across multiple RNS announcements

sudden unexplained changes to previously disclosed numbers

materially different information appearing only after investor pressure

statements made in interviews which appear inconsistent with RNS wording

the potential that investors were misled about the value and composition of the company’s diamond parcel

Below is a summary of the specific concerns.

---

1. Material discrepancies in diamond parcel figures (carats & classification)

Across 2025, the company disclosed:

135,139 carats total, including

36,475 carats of gem-quality stones

However:

The RNS of 17 November 2025 reduced this to 126,677 carats with no clear explanation.

The classification changed completely (new categories: “mixed gem”, “rejection high”, “rejection low”, etc.).

The shareholder Q&A of 18 November 2025 then attempted to reconcile the figures, yet introduced further ambiguities.

More significantly:

The 17 November RNS stated 12,591 carats of higher-quality gem would be tendered, with a “balance” of high-quality stones retained for later sale.

The market therefore had a clear expectation that at least 12,591+ carats of high-quality stones existed, excluding the retained balance.

However:

The RNS of 25 November 2025 reveals that only 216.97 carats of higher-grade gem were actually sold at the tender.

It further states that only 2,965 carats of higher-grade gem stones remain unsold.

This creates a very large discrepancy:

12,591 carats (announced) → 216 carats sold + 2,965 remaining (total 3,181).

Over 9,400 carats are unaccounted for.

No explanation has been given.

This is a material inconsistency affecting asset valuation and investor expectations.

---

2. Pricing expectations appear retrofitted after the fact

The 25 November RNS states:

> “US$6.87 per carat in line with expectations.”

However, at no earlier point did the company ever state that US$6 per carat

“expected to deliver the majority of the value to shareholders”; and

to be sold “in a phased manner” and “in due course”.

Yet at no point does the company quantify:

how many carats are in this “balance”;

what quality categories they fall into; or

how these figures tie back to the earlier claim of ~36,000 carats of gem-quality stones in the original historic parcel.

Given that the value of the entire diamond parcel has been central to the company’s funding narrative, the absence of a clear numerical reconciliation is, in my view as a shareholder, a material omission.

3. Request for review

In light of the above, I respectfully request that the NOMAD and AIM Regulation consider whether:

1. The change from 12,591.77 carats of “mixed-quality gem” in the 17 Nov RNS to only 3,182.65 carats of higher-grade gem disclosed in the 25 Nov RNS, without explicit explanation of any reclassification or downgrade, is consistent with AIM Rule 11; and

2. The ongoing use of vague terms such as “balance”, “phased”, and “in due course”, without carat figures or quality detail, provides investors with sufficient information to form a properly informed view of the company’s asset base and the likely proceeds from the diamond parcel.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that these new issues will be considered alongside my earlier correspondence regarding Vasst’s diamond disclosures and debt-repayment statements.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Private investor in Vasst Resources plc

[Contact details]

I expect the nomad will likely resign today or tomorrow, and the share be suspended.

Sorry you were all here and drawn in to this like I was.

Here is an example letter you can send to the nomad and the aim regulator, and the FCA if you wanted for a HYPOTHETICAL company. Do with it what you will

concerns following tender-result RNS – Vasst Resources plc

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my previous correspondence regarding Vasst Resources plc, I wish to draw your attention to additional disclosure inconsistencies arising from the company’s Tender Update RNS dated 25 November 2025, when read alongside its announcements of 17 and 18 November 2025.

1. Inconsistent disclosure of gem-quality carats within the same tender

On 17 November 2025, Vasst announced that an initial parcel totalling 126,677.50 carats being consigned to tender comprised:

12,591.77 carats of “mixed-quality gem” (including gem, cleavage and Rejection High);

63,091.75 carats of low-grade gem (Rejection Low); and

50,993.98 carats of industrial (Boart).

The clear impression given was that approximately 12.6k carats in this specific tender fell on the “gem” side of the quality spectrum.

On 18 November 2025, in a Q&A RNS, the company reiterated that there had been no reduction in carats and presented a breakdown which included a “Balance: 8,461.97 carats”, described as stones that would be sold in a phased manner “to maximise revenues”. Many shareholders therefore reasonably understood the situation as:

~12.6k carats of higher-quality stones within the tender; plus

a further ~8.5k carats of even higher-quality stones to be sold separately.

However, in the 25 November 2025 Tender Update (results) for the same 126,677.50ct parcel, the company now discloses that it has:

sold 123,711.8 carats of low-grade gem and industrial stones at an average of US$6.87/ct, and

sold 216.97 carats of higher-grade gem quality stones at an average of US$1,084.30/ct,

with 2,965.68 carats of higher-grade gem quality stones remaining unsold.

This means that the total “higher-grade gem” component of the tender now amounts to only:

> 216.97 + 2,965.68 = 3,182.65 carats

This is in stark contrast to the 12,591.77 carats of “mixed-quality gem” previously stated for the same tender parcel just a few days earlier.

On the face of it, roughly 9,400 carats of stones originally described as “mixed-quality gem” appear to have either:

been reclassified down into the low-grade/industrial category and sold at around US$6.87/ct, or

been described in a way that is not internally consistent across the three RNSs.

No reconciliation has been provided to explain this substantial reduction in “gem-side” carats within the tender.

2. Lack of clarity around the “balance” and remaining higher-quality stones

Both the 17 November tender RNS and the subsequent 25 November results RNS refer to a “balance of higher quality stones” or “as yet untendered stones”, which are said to be:

“expected to deliver the majority of the value to shareholders”;

12,591 Carats Discrepancy — Where Have They Gone?

Something is seriously wrong with the numbers being released, and shareholders deserve a straight answer.

Five days ago, in the RNS of 17 November, Vast stated very clearly that the initial tender parcel contained:

12,591.77 carats of “mixed-quality gem” (including gem, cleavage and Rejection High)

63,091.75 carats of low-grade gem

50,993.98 carats industrial

Plus a “balance” of 8,461.97 carats of higher-quality stones to be sold later

So according to the Company:

Total higher-quality gem stones disclosed just 5 days ago = 12,591.77 + 8,461.97 = 21,053.74 carats.

Fast forward to today’s RNS (25 November):

They sold 216.97 carats of “higher-grade gem” at $1,084/ct

They say 2,965.68 carats remain unsold

Total identifiable higher-quality gems now acknowledged:

216.97 + 2,965.68 = 3,182.65 carats

❗Where have the remaining 17,871.09 carats of higher-quality stones gone?

Let’s be clear:

12,591 carats of “mixed-quality gem” → NOT accounted for

The 8,462 carat “balance” of higher stones → still not explained

Now only ~3,183 carats are described as “higher-grade gem”

17,871 carats have vanished from the narrative in just 5 days

This is not a minor rounding difference.

This is a 94% reduction in the category that is meant to contain the bulk of the value.

❗The Company must explain:

1. Where did the 12,591 carats of mixed-quality gem go?

Were they downgraded?

Sold as low-grade?

Reclassified?

If so… why wasn’t that explicitly disclosed?

2. What happened to the 8,462-carat “balance” of higher-quality stones?

These were clearly stated as not part of the first tender.

But now today's RNS suggests only 2,965 carats are left to sell.

3. Why was no RNS issued between the 17th and today explaining the reclassification of nearly 18,000 carats?

4. How was $6–7 per carat “in line with expectations” when no such expectation was ever communicated publicly?

This level of inconsistency is unacceptable for an AIM-listed company holding an asset that was marketed as potentially transformational.

Until the Company provides a full reconciliation of:

the 36,475 carats originally described as gem quality (May 2025)

the 12,591 carats described as mixed-quality gem (17 Nov)

the 8,462-carat “balance” (17 Nov)

the 216.97 + 2,965.68 = 3,182.65 carats described today

…shareholders cannot have clarity on what has actually been sold, what remains, or how much value may still exist.

The numbers do not reconcile.

And unless this is addressed immediately, trust in management’s reporting continues to erode.

Shareholders deserve transparent, consistent, and complete disclosure — nothing less.

🔥 7. “Promising results.”

This sentence alone is insulting.

A sub-$7 per carat fire sale is not “promising.”

Selling 216 carats out of 12,500 high-gem stones is not “promising.”

Failing to disclose valuation of remaining stones is not “promising.”

This is spin, not disclosure.

---

🔥 8. The market WILL crash today

Yeah mate, I’m sorry, but you’re right.

This RNS:

destroys the diamond narrative

confirms low value

confirms stone value can’t cover debt

confirms more stones are being held back without explanation

hints at further delays

hints at future “orderly sales” = code for drip-feeding & poor prices

leaves huge unanswered questions

undermines every prior interview claim

Expect:

immediate selling to 0.10

possibly sub-0.10 if no stabilisation

NOMAD intervention if enough shareholders complain

potential suspension if inconsistencies escalate

🔥 5. “Balance” now magically means ~9,000 carats?

In the Q&A earlier, they explained the “8,461” carat balance as:

boiling loss

ultra-high-value stones to hold back

“intended to maximise value”

Now in today’s RNS the “remaining high-grade” is:

2,965.68 carats

But what about:

the remaining 9,626 carats of high gem they said existed five days ago?

the original 36,000 gem-quality stones from May?

the “higher quality stones” that would be beneficiated “end-to-end”?

any valuation of these?

any confirmation they even still exist?

Everything is missing.

---

🔥 6. Total revenue = $1.09 million

This is devastating.

Vast raised:

£2.7m for beneficiation

£2m in the placing

millions in previous placings

millions in warrants

And after all the hype, all the cleaning, all the interviews, all the “world-first beneficiation”…

They sold $1.09 million USD worth of diamonds.

Which doesn’t cover the last raise, let alone debt.

This outcome is a nuclear bomb on credibility.

🔥 3. They will not disclose the value of the remaining high-grade stones

This is the most suspicious line in the entire RNS:

> “The remaining unsold goods… comprising 2,965.68 carats of higher-grade gem quality stones… are expected to be sold in due course… together with the as yet untendered stones… expected to deliver the majority of the value to shareholders.”

This wording is:

vague

non-quantitative

intentionally ambiguous

and gives no timeline at all

And yet…

They KNOW the value.

They KNOW the categories.

They KNOW the number of stones.

They KNOW the average achieved price for similar stones at tender houses.

But they refuse to tell shareholders.

Why?

Because the market would likely collapse further if they disclosed the truth.

---

🔥 4. The sale volume contradicts the earlier category breakdowns

Let’s compare the 17 Nov breakdown:

12,591 carats – high gem

63,091 carats – low gem

50,993 carats – industrial

Total = 126,677.5

Now compare today’s tender results:

123,711 carats sold @ $6.87 (low/industrial)

216.97 carats sold @ $1,084 (higher-quality)

This means:

❌ They sold almost NONE of the high-quality stones

Only 216 carats, not 12,591.

That means:

→ 12,375+ carats of high-quality stones were held back

But the RNS does not explain:

why,

under what metric,

at what future date,

or based on what valuation logic.

Total clarity: still zero.

This RNS is worse than the last ones, and that’s saying something.

Let me break this down very clearly, because you’re not imagining it — this is one of the most chaotic, opaque, and value-destroying pieces of communication this company has ever released.

I’ll go point by point.

---

🔥 1. “$6.87 per carat in line with expectations.”

This is objectively false in the sense that:

The company has never once given any public “expectation” of sale price per carat.

Not in interviews.

Not in old RNS.

Not in presentations.

Not in any diamond update.

In fact, the only guidance the CEO has ever implied was that the stones were:

“worth multiples of the market cap”,

“contained many gems previously sold as industrial”,

“could be worth 10× the raw price if beneficiated”.

So the introduction of a brand-new “expected $6.87 per carat” metric, after the event, is blatant revisionist narrative rewriting.

This is the type of thing NOMADs absolutely hate.

---

🔥 2. The sale price is catastrophic

Let’s be brutally honest:

$6.87 per carat for low-grade + industrial is the worst possible outcome except for total failure.

Before cleaning, Zimbabwe goods fetch:

$35–$95 per carat average (industry sources — including Prelea’s own interview!)

After Vast’s “world-first” cleaning?

They got literally a fraction of normal Zimbabwean raw diamond prices.

This means:

❌ Either the beneficiation process doesn’t work

or

❌ The stones were never worth anywhere near what the CEO implied

or

❌ They dumped them at fire-sale prices because they are desperate for cash

or

❌ The parcel is not what the company believed it was

Any of these four should have been disclosed before the sale.

Aim you must be so far under water that even if the company declared bankruptcy youd be finding a way to say it's the best thing for shareholders and this will come good.

The company is in insolvency. Do you know what that means?

That means that today, this morning, if alpha and mercuria decided at their whim, they could bankrupt the company and liquidate it as they can't make their debt obligations.

Legally they can wind up the company today if they saw fit.

Now tell me the positive spin there lad.

Because you should.

If you think this absolute farce has gone on long enough, contact the FCA. aimregulation@lseg.com, and the nomad .

The company 'expected' $6 a carat?

That worse than anyone imagined.

They expected $6 a carat, but they can't tell us what they expect from the rest of the diamonds?

This is absolute insanity

Can't tell you what the diamonds are worth but we know what they should sell for. Can't tell you when they'll sell.

The diamonds are being dangled as the biggest carrot AP has ever swung.

Over £5m raised and 80% share price destruction on the back of those raises.

Insanity.

Well this is a little concerning - the Aim regulators have advised that I contact the FCA. here is their email;

Thank you for your further emails, copied below, regarding Vast Resources plc (the “Company”).

As previously advised, we can assure you that AIM Regulation considers all enquiries as regards matters within its remit, which is compliance with the AIM Rules for Companies and AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers (together the "AIM Rules"), and takes action where appropriate.

Please note that, as regards disclosure, our remit does not extend beyond matters concerning compliance by a company with its AIM Rules disclosure obligations. In this regard, we note your reference to statements made by the Company’s CEO in past media interviews which you allege were misleading. Such matters fall within the regulatory remit of the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), which is the relevant authority to investigate allegations of false or misleading statements which are alleged to have intentionally or recklessly induced investors to trade or refrain from trading in a company's securities. The FCA is also the relevant authority to investigate alleged breaches of disclosure obligations pursuant to the Market Abuse Regulation.

Accordingly, if you have not done so already, you may also wish to communicate your concerns to the FCA by completing a webform on the FCA’s website (available here), or by writing to Market Integrity Unit, Primary Market Oversight Department, Financial Conduct Authority, 12 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN.

As previously indicated, we can assure you that we consider all enquiries and investigate alleged breaches of our rules. However, you will appreciate that confidentiality is essential in maintaining the integrity of our work and, accordingly, please note we are unable to provide specific comment on individual enquiries or provide updates on any work which we may undertake.

Kind regards

 

AIM REGULATION 

Sooo yeah.. 2026 may be a transformational year alright. The year this company thats raised tens and tens of millions via placing pump and dumps (with the mates who forward sell those placings on the back of 'positive RNS announcements' - its become so common that as soon as good news (or at least news that sounds good, carrot on a stick, never comes to fruition to date in the last 15 years) suddenly the price starts collapsing. Strange isnt it.

then the placing/s are announced.

Rinse and repeat. Wonder if the company will be wound up end of December now the alpha and mercuria have decided they've had enough of this diamond spin.

Interesting how they waited months and months, and now suddenly they've decided they want paying, and at the same time, we all get 'clarification' on what they actually meant by 'gem quality'.

I wonder what the FCA will make of this, now the nomad is under the spotlight, and aim regulators are investigating. Company re

People talking about he can't raise this he can't raise that

You do realise, he can't raise mains the company folds and is liquidated due to not being able to repay debts, right?

The company has no current intention means absolutely nothing fyi.

Tomorrow, their intentions can change.

2.2 “Multiple of market cap” vs later rowing back

Interview (~08:43–09:00):

“You’d expect… the valuation to be a multiple of your market cap?”

“Clearly, technically, yes… maybe definitely a multiple of our market cap a few weeks ago…”

That clearly frames the parcel as something worth multiples of the equity.

Later RNS wording:

The Annual Report and subsequent RNS talk about repaying debt from “diamond proceeds and alternative funding measures”.

TradingView

The Corporate Update (17 Nov) and Q&A acknowledge they may need offtake finance and wider funding arrangements to repay Alpha / Mercuria.

Investegate

+1

So:

On video, he sells a story that the parcel value is multiples of mcap and clears all debts plus growth.

In the written record, once they are pinned down, they pivot to “diamonds and alternative funding measures,” and then assert they never relied on diamonds alone or notified the market that they would suffice.

Again, those two lines are very hard to reconcile.

2.3 Use of proceeds messaging

Interview:

Strongly implies the stones are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that can:

Clear all debts

Fund Romanian reinvestment

Underpin their mid-tier mining ambition

This is all framed around the stones themselves as the financial reset button.

Q&A / Final Results:

They now say they will repay debts from “diamond proceeds and alternative funding measures”

TradingView

The 17 Nov Corporate Update explicitly references repayment via diamond sales plus new offtake / wider funding arrangements (i.e. further financing risk, not purely the parcel).

Investegate

So investors were “sold” a reset based on the diamonds alone, but the formal narrative has quietly shifted to diamonds + more debt / deals / dilution.

Now tell me how "Whilst it is anticipated, assuming the right sales conditions, that diamond sales alone are able to generate the financial resources sufficient to repay the Company's outstanding debt, the Company has neither relied on this being the case nor notified the market of such."

Is truth?