Member Info for Hexam

HNS - They may well have acted as lenders (though still seen no actual evidence) - what I am challenging is the repeated assertion that HSBC are the biggest lender. They are certainly not in the DIP group as that list has already been published.

Ian, you provided no such proof of HSBC’s lending just what you thought was proof but just turned out to be confirmation they arranged the funding from other lenders not that they necessarily loaned any money themselves.

The DIP lenders are now the senior lenders as described clearly by the court documents as the DIP loans have priority over all other loans.

I wish there really was going to be something posted next week listing all the lenders so that you will see how wrong you are but even then I suspect you will deny it somehow. As it is I suspect nothing will come out at all next week and so it will be just another one of your failed predictions. I’ve honestly never known anybody make stuff up on these boards quite like you. Other people talk plenty of BS but nobody else weaves it into fantasy narratives the way you do and then claim it to be gospel. Who could forget the ‘illegal $1bn’ which turned out to be perfectly legal after all.

And on top of this you are now ordering me off the board! I have shares in CINE already but even if I didn’t that shouldn’t preclude me from posting - certainly not just on your command.

To be fair I think you could have picked any line in Ian’s post to challenge. I see his odd fixation with HSBC is back even though we know they are definitely not one of the DIP lenders and there is no evidence they are a lender to CINE at all - let alone the biggest one. Crazy.

“Not bias figures plucked from Thin air”

But they’re not. They are based on the actual BTC prices now and the level it has been at (or slightly higher) for months.

ARB by their own admission have said they can’t survive many months unless they get additional funding and they’ve also said they are not sure they can get that funding.

It’s not FUD it’s straightforward maths based on current BTC levels and listening to what the company is actually telling you.

Of course the funding could happen and BTC could soar in which case happy days but both are long shots in my view over the next few months although I think some kind of funding is the slightly less unlikely of the two.

Nobody lends money to a failing business on cheap terms - if at all. We do not meet Binance's criteria which I thought said 'otherwise strong miner' or words to that effect. There is no way Argo could currently be described as strong on any basis.

I don’t think it did but it certainly is at least possible.

What it won’t be is easy or cheap.

Absolutely delusional.

"exactly, you bought off the shorts too at oversold pos (how many others)...../ rest my case. enough said"

If that's aimed at me I don't even know what you mean and I doubt you do either. More like nothing said than enough said.

I'm a LTH who's also trying to trade the stock to reduce my losses a bit. But if you don't believe me that's fine, it's up to you and I can't say I care.

I'd love the sp to rocket but your endless posting and lies won't make any difference to that.

None lately, in fact I’ve bought twice since my last sell. Is your filter not working again?

“but the fact is no one is selling.”

Well that makes CINE a rather unique share then.

Yet another cracker.

They definitely held shares at mid-year as the investment is detailed fully in the accounts and surely an RNS would have been required had they sold since.

I’m not sure he’s kidding. He might actually believe what he’s saying but his style is to invent a scenario based on pure invention and express it is an absolutely certainty with no room for debate.

Remember this is the guy that told us repeatedly that the $1bn would never be used to pay off loans because it was illegal. Could never happen. Absolutely not. But of course it did.

As to the investment firms buying off retail I must have missed all the notifications via RNS of their increased holdings? One of many holes in his argument.

It may be he is right though and the company will be sold. We just don’t know.

But if it was so certain that it will be and we would definitely get £1 per share it’s rather surprising the sp is only 5p - unless Ian is the only one to have this insight. Now he’s made it public though we should see a quid very soon!

I’m saying I’m hoping for 10% - and not of a debt-free company (just one with lower debt). We’ll see but may indeed be too optimistic - or may be pessimistic. None of us know.

It's not clear to me what this means for ARB. It looks like Pluto paid for the remaining 60% of Maze with 151m new shares in Pluto which must have diluted the ARB holding even though their agreement was to be able to always maintain 25%. ARB numbers of shares in Pluto is about 155m I think - 34m or so from the first £1m investment (your link) and 121m from second investment:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ARB/proposed-fundraising-to-raise-up-to-163268-million-35u94gelclxdend.html

As to the IPO it depends on whether ARB shares form part of this offering or the IPO just raises additional funding (and hence dilution for ARB in the same way we were diluted by the NASDAQ IPO). If it's the former though i.e. the ARB shares are part of the IPO then at $65m for all existing Pluto shares would represent a very welcome cash injection but it's not at all clear that this is what it means or when it might take place.

I tried to find out more by searching for 'Pluto and Maze' but just got back loads of images of a Disney dog running around between tall hedges looking lost. Perhaps we'll see an RNS from ARB as to what it all means for them - not holding my breath though.

...obviously, as AB says, pre-merger.

Yes - pretty much:

"Argo owns 24.65% of the total share capital and voting rights of the business and is entitled to nominate one
director to the Pluto Board of Directors." - from interim accounts.

Hi AllKap,

The article gives a very good summing up in my view although it doesn't say much that it is new (though interesting that they describe the DIP facility as the fifth largest ever agreed).

Obviously the worrying thing from our point of view is that it talks of either D4E or a sale of the business but again we already knew these were the two most likely outcomes (CINE said so about D4E and the court threw in the sale possibility).

So nothing changes from this article and the big question remains what happens to existing holders in either scenario - and this of course depends on the terms. As long as we retain at least 10% of the new CINE then I'll be happy but that's because my average is around 16p now and with 10% I think I stand a good chance of at least getting my money back. Obviously I'd prefer it if it was more than 10% but it could well be less. We just don't know.

We will just have to wait to see what happens and what the terms are. In my view though it's certainly not the end yet just from anything said in the article.

What?! Mags and big-blue posting on the same board? No one deserves that.

Haha. At least get my name right if you’re just going to throw baseless insults at me. Or maybe point out anything I say you think is incorrect? But then again baseless insults (and conspiracy theories and other rants) is what you specialise in so I suppose I shouldn’t expect anything better.

Totally agree Alamo. Seems there are a lot of people who think most people post here simply to get others to buy or sell (presumably the sort that do precisely that). On your question though is there a court hearing tomorrow? There is a lenders' meeting if that's what you are referring to but I'm not sure what the expectations are from this as I've seen nothing official about what they are actually going to discuss. There certainly may be something significant that comes out of it but even if that's the case will we hear about it immediately - especially as I think this is already the third such meeting?