Member Info for Investor01

The delays could be strategic, there has been a delay at every step in this transaction. The clock starts ticking when this deal is completed for us to find a new asset, and 6 months is not long. As such, maybe the delays are just ensuring they get their ‘ducks lined up’ as much as possible for the next step before officially starting the clock. We all know how quickly time can go.

SmartMoney1 would be great to hear your thoughts on this if you are willing to share?

You are completely correct FB, good point. Just website not being updated.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing that Mr Eckhof must have brought more shares this year to keep his 3% holding on PFP's major shareholder board (as we diluted earlier this year)? Good show of continued faith if he did.

Thanks FB, sorry if my reasoning was not clear, I completely agree that negotiations are not being held on a single BoD’s behalf. However, the BoD are setting/agreeing these dates and extensions and I just find it very interesting that they selected the last day before his options expire. These options made to the BoDs could be very valuable if the company achieves completion and makes meaningful steps on its next venture, where hopefully the SP will re-rate.

I do suspect the extension was likely Adamsky’s options ‘C’- I get the sense they have tried to keep the door open for a potential settlement wherever possible, which makes sense to me.

Fingers crossed!

The SPA being signed was a major step to committing AAG to the transaction, ‘completion’ is achieved now via shareholder approval. It could be a final window for the settlement route, I guess with the SPA signed AAG and PFP both are to gain in some form from an offer coming in prior to completion (no doubt there were clauses for this eventuality in what has been agreed) and AAG have only incurred the costs associated with due diligence thus far.

Just a thought but 10,000,000 share options expire on the 11th May, have they set this date to create a window of time but avoid these lapsing? (which for me would be a positive sign), I guess held by one of the BoDs? When we complete this should easily be over the excise price of 1.25p, and if by chance an RTO or second transaction occurred on the same day, the SP would be far higher. GLA

Morning, correct me if I am wrong, but RTOs can be relatively quick with timescales in weeks not months.

Just to follow up on my earlier message and to bring it back on radar for anyone that is new, this is the most detailed information we received as to where PFP were looking for their next project:

Sept 30th 2022 half year results: ‘To this end, Pathfinder has conducted technical due diligence on the Ambatomitamba graphite mine owned by Societe Malgache du Graphite (SOMAGRA) in Madagascar. The mine, having at one time been the largest producer of graphite in the country, is a brownfield prospect for which SOMAGRA is developing a mineral resource estimate.’

It was highlighted 1 day after the RNS (29th Sept) where we were first informed of the AAG deal and the £2mil upfront payment that was built in. The above statement implies the due diligence was completed rather than ongoing, and why mention it so specifically if it proved not to be a viable prospect? Also, no further mention of the BoD searching in RNS' since this statement. This is why I anticipate/hope if we get the £2mil next month there is a quick step to actioning movement on the next project, and this payment by AAG was put in place to specifically enable this (or something) they have already identified.

The BoD have been investigating new projects for over 2 years now and their comments have slowly been getting more specific on this point, also a new subsidiary was incorporated last year. IMO, I think the £2mil was likely to have been requested as part of the deal with AAG for a specific reason. 22nd March RNS: ‘The directors are confident that the initial consideration payable in respect of the Disposal of £2 million will be sufficient to cover the costs of a reverse takeover under AIM Rule 14 and provide initial working capital for the then enlarged group.’

I think the BoD have done a great job getting us to where we are, if not reflected in the SP yet, I see a strong potential flow of positive news regarding the company next potential licence opportunity and the potential remains for a settlement offer in the near-term or a successful BIT claim in the next 2-5 years.

I am equally confused by recent trading activity as it is very counter-intuitive.. act of a few? I wonder what Align's thoughts are on this?

The dilution from the placing is around 20% and any upfront money from the sale of IMM is just money in the bank. As such, the dilution effect would in theory be small compared to the potential upside if all went to plan.

I remain hopeful the AAG deal pulls off, it was a short extension that was arranged, and they could have walked away at any stage before now. However, let’s say worst case scenario that AAG were to walk, we will need funds to keep the lights on and to provide time to find an alternative buyer for IMM. We have to be running very low on working capital now (if not working off the loan). I personally feel more comfortable with some further dilution now to know we are financially covered (irrespective of the AAG deal outcome) for the next 12 months and likely a bit beyond. Certainly not trying to be antagonistic in saying this, but I just personally like the security of having this contingency money lined up.

I personally do not see why would Adam Dziubinski extend a loan if we had hit the end of the road. He would have been privilege to confidential details of PFP’s progress in granting this extension of the loan amount and date. Maybe the AAG deal still has legs, maybe there are other parties already lining up? Either way there has to be something that is shimmering in this for us to get the loan extended. I think everyone has put too much ‘do or die’ on AAG’s decision specially. Buying and selling does not always go to the first person that is interested, and one persons dis-interest does not devalue the asset. Everyone will have a different take on this, different skills, different strategy. Give the BoD time to update us before we all get too doom and gloom on where we stand. Things may still be very much alive with AAG. AAG are likely reliant on DLA Piper to work through most of the legal due diligence to come up with their own personal legal conclusions. Based on recent RNS’ we tend to get a fairly comprehensive update on progress 2-3 days after an event.

I am continuing to sit tight on this, I personally don’t think the lack of BIT progress is inaction, I think it is strategy. IMO I think PFP could be doing everything possible to leave the door open for a breakthrough with TZM. Bear in mind once we sign agreements with a party that will fund the BIT we will likely be locked into proceeding with the BIT and exposed to significant charges/penalties if we then accept a deal with TZM. The call from TZM might not come, but we are a threat to TZM’s investment which makes me feel it is more likely to happen than not. TZM had the financial means to acquire the licence from the owners of Pathfinder Mozambique and, as such, I suspect they have the financial means to purchase IMM. I am replying to a message on a post by Fcruz back on the 4th March this year, just to bring it back on radar, it was a translation from an article from Jornal de Noticias (the original link to the article is on their message before on the 4th March). TZM were predicting end of June for the environmental licences to allow them to develop the site, for me this makes this period a potentially an interesting one. The pressure for PFP to sign a funder for the BIT is growing (it’s true, we can’t wait forever), the need for TZM to protect the investment is growing (site development will require a considerable investment as they move to site development). I personally feel that something could break in the near term. DYOR though, these are just thoughts.

We appear to have a new subsidiary - Pathfinder Battery Commodities Ltd - 12 days old.

I have been considering whether June might represent a milestone point for all of this. Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall one of the links posted on this board stating TZM’s public consultation period ends in June (if someone knows which link, possibly they could repost). Consultation is obviously a low cash burn part of the project for TZM, however when this consultation is concluded the subsequent stages will require significant investment in the project and the BIT claim represents a real risk to this investment. I agree Dip666, I also think TZM could be biding time to get the best value from any deal. However, in light of TZM’s consultation period ending soon, I am personally mulling on the thought that the next few months could be a key period where any potential offers could emerge (if they are going to) from TZM.

Amazing how time flies, I have also been a shareholder in PFP for nearly 6 years now, fingers crossed the patience pays off.

Just to add an opinion here. For me, I was pleased to see in last week’s RNS that the door is still open for discussion with TZM. Despite no evidence of further meetings since June, anyone who has negotiated knows that the true breakthroughs happen at the final hour. No doubt our RNS was as much a signal to TZM that we are making progress towards that time. If we ink an agreement with a litigation funder, it will be a uni-directional course for PFP through the ICSID. As such, the window for negotiation is obviously closing and I remain hopeful that in the New Year we might see a return to the table with TZM where an amicable compensation arrangement could be found. Merry Christmas.

I hope you are well Richard. Very pleased that Align is still holding here. We all wait with bated breath for the next RNS.

I can’t find anything about TZM online also. I am assuming they must have a well-funded backer to have acquired the licence, but I have nothing to base this upon.

As the Mozambique Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy was at the meeting last month, I have been mulling over the thought that a possible outcome could be TZM offering compensation to keep the licence while the MMRE might offer an alternative licence as a package to settle outside of a BIT claim. Mark Gasson was appointed to PFP a month before the meeting for assessing new opportunities and could be very relevant if this was a possible outcome. Obviously pure speculation on my part, but such a scenario might represent an attractive solution for all sides.

If an average BIT claim takes 2 years and the down-stream revenue from the asset is predicted to be $323million/yr, the time lost waiting for the BIT claim outcome would still represent $646million lost potential revenue. There is obviously an incentive for TZM to want to avoid this going to a BIT claim even looking at it from the perspective of ‘lost time’ (ignoring the 55-60% chance the licence gets taken away altogether). I do think it would be a wonderful outcome for a fair arrangement to be reached between PFP and TZM now that dialogue is open.

I agree FreeBuffett, the BoD did very well to get all those individuals to a single meeting. Our loss to date is $621million and we have a 55-60% chance of reclaiming the licence to a $1billion dollar asset if we pursue a BIT claim. I hope that if any offer emerges that it is reflective of these facts. However, I am pleased to see the BoD keeping this 'time sensitive'. GLA