Member Info for Fronteracheckin

Interview with AP 28th April 2025.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-RZsD5uleU&t=2s

List of contradictions;

A. “Multiple of your market cap”

Approx 08:43 – 09:00

Interviewer: “You’d expect from an early estimation here the valuation to be a multiple of your market cap?”

AP: “Clearly, technically, yes… I mean, maybe definitely a multiple of our market cap a few weeks ago. The market cap has grown dramatically…”

So he explicitly agrees the parcel valuation is a multiple of the company’s market cap, not just some vague upside.

B. “Should not only pay off all our outstanding debts…”

Approx 12:55 – 13:23

When the interviewer asks whether Vast has debts it plans to repay from the diamonds:

Interviewer: “Has Vast got some debts it’s now looking to repay from the eventual sale from these diamonds?”

AP:

“…we are of the strong belief that the revenue raised from the sale of these stones should not only pay off all our outstanding debts but should also allow us to move forward and do what we’ve been trying to do in Romania for so long but been under-capitalised, and now this will give us the opportunity to do so.”

That is very clear:

“Strong belief”

“Should not only pay off all our outstanding debts”

“Should also allow us to move forward”

So the interview absolutely does convey the idea that the parcel covers the debt and leaves surplus to fund Romanian growth.

2. Clean breakdown of contradictions

Now compare that to the Shareholder Q&A RNS – 18 November 2025:

TradingView

2.1 Debt coverage

Interview (May 2025, timestamp ~12:55–13:23):

“We are of the strong belief that the revenue raised from the sale of these stones should not only pay off all our outstanding debts but should also allow us to move forward…”

This is clearly positioning the parcel as sufficient to clear all secured debt, plus fund future operations.

Shareholder Q&A (18 Nov 2025, Q2):

TradingView

“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.”

Contradictions:

In the interview, he says they are of a strong belief that the stones will pay off all debts and provide extra growth capital.

In the Q&A, the company says it has “neither relied on this being the case nor notified the market of such”.

Given the video is a public market-facing interview, it is very hard to reconcile those two statements. At minimum it is misleading to suggest the market was not “notified” when the CEO literally told investors, on camera, that the stones should pay all debts and more.

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 mar

AI overview on this Q&A - New RNS + Q&A Thoughts (Fact-Based Summary Only)

The Q&A today answers a few questions but leaves several major issues unresolved:

Parcel Size: Earlier RNSs quoted ~135k carats. The tender now contains ~126.6k, with the remainder attributed to “boiling losses” or “balance”. No prior RNS mentioned an 8.5k carat adjustment.

Gem-Quality: Earlier disclosures said the parcel contained ~36,475 gem-quality carats. The tender now contains 12,591 “mixed-quality gem” and the rest has been redistributed into lower categories. The Q&A does not clearly reconcile the change from 36k → 12.5k.

Debt Repayment: Previous messaging suggested diamond proceeds would clear the debt. Recent RNSs now say repayment will require proceeds plus new funding arrangements. The Q&A claims the company never relied on diamonds alone, which conflicts with prior guidance.

Withheld Stones: The company says the “balance of higher-quality stones” will be sold “in due course” but provides no carat figure, no quality breakdown, and no timeframe.

Timelines: Earlier statements of “days”, then “weeks”, then “months” for the sale have not been explained.

These unresolved inconsistencies continue to make valuation difficult for shareholders. This is not criticism—just a factual summary of what remains unclear.

Then,

Diamond Update

21 October 2025

Vast Resources plc(“Vast” or the “Company”)

Vast Resources plc, the AIM quoted mining company, is pleased to provide an update further to the announcement of 15 September 2025 on the sale process.

The Company advises that it has secured the week commencing 17 November 2025 for its rough stone tender of in excess of 120,000 carats with Trans Atlantic Gems Dubai, this being the first available date following a temporary slowdown in diamond demand during the Diwali festival period. The results of the auction will be announced once available.

As previously announced, the intention of the Company remains to be directly and indirectly involved in the entire value-chain, where possible, in order to maximise returns for shareholders.

The Company will provide further updates to the market as appropriate.

- this comes more than 5 months after the 'results will be in weeks' comment, in May.

TWO DAYS later;

Placing to raise £2,000,000

Vast Resources plc / Ticker: VAST / Index: AIM / Sector: Mining

23 October 2025

Vast Resources plc(“Vast” or the “Company”)

Placing to raise £2,000,000

Vast Resources plc, the AIM-listed mining company, announces that it has raised gross proceeds of £2,000,000 by way of a placing for 1,111,111,111 new ordinary shares of 0.1p in the Company (“Ordinary Shares”) (the “Placing”) at a price of 0.18p per new Ordinary Share. The Placing, which will close in two tranches as set out below, was undertaken by the Company’s joint broker, Axis Capital Markets Ltd (“Axis”).

2 Million pounds, at a price of 0.18p. thats half of the previous raise of 2.7 MILLION pounds - that was being used to sell the diamonds - back in MAY.

Oh and on top of the 808 thousand GBP in warrants raised too. So since May, the company (with 25kg of diamonds in their hands) has raised over 5.5 million pounds. Discounting and diluting the price to -0.18pence, from over 0.5pence. Thats a 64% collapse in share price, whilst having 25kg of diamonds in hand.

Well it looks like the only way you'll -sort of- get an answer out of this company is via an official complaint to the regulators - I'm glad many people used my template as there is strength in numbers. Question remains - why do they only start giving figures once threatened by the aim regulation team?

Also "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." -- funny that, I seem to have AP on my screen right now, stating that the diamonds are worth multiples of the companies MCAP - and that the diamond sales will cover the full outstanding debt on YouTube.

Also;

7 May 2025 07:00

Update on Historic Parcel

Vast Resources plc / Ticker: VAST

"The Company is in process of selecting the first stones for cleaning and estimates that initial results will be available in the coming weeks. "

Operational Update

12 June 2025

"I look forward to providing updates on these processes in the coming months, along with news on the expected diamond sales in the coming weeks.”

16 Jun 2025 07:00

Placing and Subscription to raise £2,712,000

Vast Resources plc, the AIM-listed mining company, announces that it has raised gross proceeds of £2,712,000 by way of a subscription for 60,571,428 new ordinary shares of 0.1p in the Company (“Ordinary Shares”) (the “Subscription”) and a placing (the “Placing”) of 714,285,713 new Ordinary Shares at a price of 0.35p per new Ordinary Share (together, the “Fundraise”).

then after more than two months from the first 'initial results will be available in the coming weeks.'

Vast Resources PLC

14 July 2025

Vast Resources plc, the AIM quoted mining company, is pleased to announce that further to the announcement of 7 May 2025, positive progress has been made in the primary beneficiation process of preparing the diamond parcels for tendering.

Over recent weeks the Company has been working with specialist consultants to develop new cleaning and sorting processes specific to these eluvial stones, which are unique in character and require several layers of cleaning and preparation to maximise their value at tender. The intention of the Company is to be directly and indirectly involved in the entire value-chain where possible in order to maximise returns for shareholders, as this a unique opportunity to best capitalise on the long-awaited parcels from the historic settlement and could open further opportunities for the Company in the future.

Just hang on one moment - "capitalise on the long-awaited parcels from the historic settlement and could open further opportunities for the Company in the future." - sorry, but the historic settlement can open even more opportunities? So settling the debt isnt included in that is it not? part paying off the debt 'could open furt

3. New wording on debt repayment (material shift from previous guidance)

Earlier company statements repeatedly stated that the diamond proceeds would be sufficient to extinguish the secured debts.

However, the new Corporate Update (17 Nov 2025) states that Vasst intends to repay these debts using:

> “revenue from diamond sales together with proceeds from new offtake finance agreements and/or wider funding arrangements”.

This represents a significant change from previous guidance and suggests that diamond proceeds alone are no longer expected to cover the debt. No explicit acknowledgement of this shift has been made.

Simultaneously, the company has conducted several discounted placings while stating it was “awaiting diamond proceeds”, which further elevates the importance of clear disclosure.

---

4. Request for NOMAD / AIM Regulation review

Given the issues outlined above, I respectfully request that the company’s NOMAD and AIM Regulation consider whether:

1. The change from ~36,475 gem-quality carats to 12,591.77 mixed-quality gem without explanation constitutes a material variation requiring clarification.

2. The reduction from 135,139 carats to 126,677.50 carats without reconciliation complies with AIM Rule 11.

3. The ongoing use of ambiguous, non-specific timing language is sufficient for investors to form a properly informed view of the company’s position.

4. The new wording that debt will be repaid using diamond proceeds plus additional funding sources is consistent with earlier statements, or whether the company should have explicitly updated the market that management expectations regarding the parcel’s sufficiency had changed.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate you may not be able to comment on specific outcomes, but would be grateful for confirmation that these issues will be reviewed in line with AIM disclosure requirements.

Kind regards,

Plenty of them to dig into and this is just a start. ASI might want to lend them a few quid for their legal battles next.

They will have plenty of publicly available information to dig into;

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a private investor in Vast Resources plc and wish to request a review of the company’s recent market disclosures under AIM Rule 11, specifically concerning the composition, valuation, and disposal of its historic diamond parcel, as well as the consistency of statements relating to debt repayment.

Two RNS announcements released on 17 November 2025 appear to introduce further material changes and additional ambiguity, without reconciling these updates with prior disclosures over the past 18–24 months.

---

1. Material changes to diamond parcel composition (no reconciliation provided)

Earlier RNS announcements (e.g., 20 April 2024; 12 June 2024) stated that the historic parcel consisted of:

Approx. 135,000 total carats, including

Approx. 36,475 carats identified as gem-quality following cleaning and sorting.

In the new Tender Update RNS (17 Nov 2025), the company now states that an “initial parcel” of 126,677.50 carats will be tendered, composed of:

12,591.77 carats “mixed-quality gem”

63,091.75 carats “low-grade gem”

50,993.98 carats industrial (Boart)

And that “the balance of higher-quality stones will be sold in a phased manner in due course”.

No explanation is provided for:

the reduction from ~135,139 carats to 126,677.50 carats;

the disappearance of the previously disclosed ~36,000 carats of gem-quality stones;

the reclassification into new categories (“Rejection High/Low”, “mixed-quality gem”, “Boart”);

the quantity, quality, or timing of the “balance of higher-quality stones”;

why the best-quality stones are not included in the tender despite earlier statements implying the parcel had been fully cleaned and was ready for sale.

Given the central role of the historic diamond parcel in the company’s financing, these appear to be material changes that ordinarily require clear reconciliation under AIM Rule 11.

---

2. Continued ambiguity in disclosures

Both the Tender Update and Corporate Update use non-specific, non-committal language, including:

“sold in a phased manner in due course”

“the balance to be sold later”

“further updates will be provided when appropriate”

This continues the long pattern of non-fixed timeframes, after earlier guidance progressed from “days” → “weeks” → “months”, without a clear explanation for repeated delays.

The company has not clarified:

whether beneficiation has been completed for the entire parcel;

how many high-quality stones remain unsold;

why these stones were not included in the tender;

whether the withheld stones will materially affect debt repayment.

very real chance the nomad could resign tomorrow and attempt to escape this **** show - not sure how many people have emailed the regulator - but here is the response i received;

thank you for your email, copied below, regarding vast resources plc.

aim regulation considers all enquiries as regards the conduct of aim companies and nominated advisers in respect of their 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 aim regulation's remit does not extend beyond the aim rules. further information regarding the remit of aim regulation and that of other regulators and competent authorities, can be found at the following: aim regulatory landscape.

as 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

asi you must be trolling or willfully ignorant at this point. anything that indicates value?

how about this

of which 36k have been identified as gem quality.

and want another indicator of value?

12k of separate divisions of gem quality. so not gem quality, but ****ty quality that is nowhere near gem quality in value.

so yeah we've gone from 36k gem quality, to a small percentage of 12k.

i've decided that you're just chatting pure ****e now to get a reaction, are there's no way a human that can figure out how to make an account on lse and remember a password, can be this stupid.

So can someone help me out here, let's say the debt magically disappeared tomorrow.

How can this company that's been operating at a loss since the first day it was created, and has been losing money year on year, with the mines closed now mind you, which were operating at a loss while they were open, suddenly be transformed?

It isn't making any money!!

email sent to;

aimregulation@lseg.com

simonraggett@strandhanson.co.uk

info@strandhanson.co.uk

simon is the ceo at strand.

wouldn't surprise me if tomorrow the nomad steps down on this colossal **** show.

gla

Part 2;

This is a significant change from the prior message that diamond proceeds alone would clear the loans. It suggests that management’s expectations regarding the sufficiency of the parcel have changed, yet there has been no explicit acknowledgment that earlier guidance may no longer hold.

At the same time, the company has undertaken substantial discounted equity placings while repeatedly stating it is “awaiting proceeds” from the parcel.

3. Timelines, delays and justification

Throughout 2024–2025, public statements around the diamond sale have moved from “days” to “weeks” to “months”, with a subsequent reference to Diwali as a cause for delay. Diwali, however, is a short festival period measured in days, not months.

Despite this, the tender date was eventually set for the week commencing 17 November 2025, long after the earlier guidance. No clear explanation has been provided as to why the timeframes have slipped so significantly, particularly when investors were making decisions based on the expectation of near-term monetisation.

4. Request for NOMAD / AIM Regulation review

I respectfully request that the company’s NOMAD and AIM Regulation consider whether:

1. The change from ~135k total carats and ~36k gem-quality to 126,677.5 carats with only 12,591.77 carats described as “mixed-quality gem”, plus a vague reference to an unspecified “balance of higher-quality stones”, is a material variation that requires clearer explanation to the market.

2. The new wording that secured debts will be repaid from diamond proceeds “together with” further funding arrangements is consistent with earlier statements that diamond proceeds alone would extinguish those debts, or whether investors should have been explicitly informed that management’s expectations had changed.

3. Taken together with repeated discounted placings while “awaiting proceeds”, the current disclosure record satisfies AIM Rule 11 in terms of providing information that is accurate, not misleading, and sufficient for investors to form a properly informed view.

I appreciate that you may not be able to comment directly on the outcome of any review, but I would be grateful if you could at least confirm that these concerns will be considered with reference to the relevant RNS announcements.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

Private investor in Vasst Resources plc

[Contact details, if you wish]

Here is a hypothetical draft you can do anything you want with, I've hypothetical a hypothetical company called 'Vasst' which doesn't exist, but feel free to use this information however you see fit.

Subject: Request for review of disclosure consistency – Vasst Resources plc (AIM: VASST)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am a private investor in Vasst Resources plc and wish to request a review of the company’s recent disclosures for consistency with AIM Rule 11 (accuracy and completeness of information released to the market).

Over the last 18–24 months, Vasst has repeatedly referred to its “Historic Diamond Parcel” as the key asset for repaying secured debt and restarting suspended mining operations. However, recent RNS announcements appear to introduce material changes to both the composition of this parcel and the expected debt-repayment mechanism, without any clear reconciliation to earlier guidance.

1. Change in reported parcel size and quality

Earlier RNS announcements stated that the Historic Parcel comprised approximately:

135,000+ carats in total, of which

~36,000 carats had been identified as gem-quality following cleaning and sorting.

In the Tender Update RNS dated 17 November 2025, Vasst now states that an “initial parcel” of 126,677.50 carats will be tendered, broken down as:

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”) stones,

with the “balance of the higher quality stones to be sold in a phased manner in due course”.

There is no explanation provided for:

the reduction from ~135k carats to 126,677.5 carats;

the disappearance of the previously stated ~36k “gem-quality” figure; or

how the new categories (“mixed-quality gem”, “Rejection High/Low”, “Boart”) relate to the earlier gem-quality disclosure.

Given the importance of this parcel to the company’s narrative and funding strategy, this appears to be a material change in asset description which has not been clearly reconciled to past statements.

2. Change in debt-repayment narrative

Historically, Vasst’s RNS announcements and CEO commentary indicated that proceeds from the diamond parcel would be sufficient to extinguish the company’s secured debts (for example, loans from Alpha and Mercuria).

However, in the Final Results RNS and again in the Corporate Update RNS dated 17 November 2025, the company now states that it:

> “plans to repay the debts from the diamond proceeds together with new offtake finance agreements and/or wider funding arrangements.”

Well looks like IG has finally called it quits for me.

£40k GBP down the drain - many others will be closed out today by this collapsed sp.

Needless to say I'll be taking legal action against the company, due to Aim rule 11 on disclosure.

I suggest you all do the same, I'll soon be putting a group together to approach a class action suit against the company for breaches to disclosure rules (of which there are very, very many)

Days not weeks (7 months ago)

Stones worth multiples of market cap (now worth 1-3m based on given figures plus the mystery 'were holding some back, can't say how many, can't say why!'

£2.7m raised to beneficiate stones

Further millions raised for due diligence on the mines we closed to save money - so that we can reopen them?

Good luck all, let me know if you'd like to take the company to court under aim disclosure rule 11

Complaint email incoming

Apologies for the double RNS this morning chaps, they've responded to my direct complaints and threats of legal action from an email I sent the company on Friday.

Still no explanation on why there is a material difference in gem quality, total carats etc, but I will continue to threaten the company to force a response for our own good.

The only action hes getting in is a quadruple tranche raise with more than 25kg of diamonds in his hands. Beggars belief.

It wouldn't have been so bad if AP didn't quadruple tranche, double raise at absolutely massive discounts to the SP, with his circular logic of diamonds, mines, paying debt.

I thought the diamonds were opening the mines and paying the debt as per multiple RNS and interviews?

Oh wait.

Extremely concerning that the price is falling in the run up to the auction literally next trading day.

Was hoping to escape this share today.

You don't know what illiquid means then do you 😂

Being able to buy and sell isn't what determins liquidity. 50 trades a day is illiquid, whether it's 50 shares or 5 million, low volume number of trades means that the spread widens and individual trades have a bigger impact.

You can buy and sell as many Tesla shares as you want - do you think one trade worth 10 grand is going to move the Tesla stock by 5%?

If it breaks 1.17 today, next resistance 1.25, then 1.30, 1.40, 1.50.

Big gaps on those resistance levels is a nice to see!

Bounce time, don't forget this is an illiquid stock - so the price is crushed on sells across days without action.

The flip side is it rises heavily once buys come in even marginally. And once people see the bounce they'll come running.