George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Its not the first time the Brooklyn bridge is being sold by Mr Lofgran neither will be the last, ntog should be called Brooklyn bridge oil & gas company
40% up on such low volume, what will happen when news is released and real volume that we saw during last autumn comes into the stock :))))
There is probably some leak, initially directors topped up, webley topped up. There were results expected, could be HUGE
Although most here are still at 50% below cost atleast so it has to rise 100% just to breakeven for most
Given overall bear market, it’s not been too bad but it might all be behind us finally
This company should be delisted, assets sold
I withdrew what I had invested here for a loss and put it into serica & kistos and more than made up the losses
Matt should be permanently disbarred from holding office in any listed company where a group of public shareholders have realistically no say on who runs the company - any private investor would have shown him the door atleast 3 years back
Reading into the buys
1. Probably no new fund raise
2. East Mine results were promised by december end so the buys might be just before they come in as any buys before the results received in the office do not constitute insider trading
imho
It has to do a 250% rise to reach 0.35 again - the next crypto , gwmo
These once in year updates and then nothing in between are traits of a sadist personality - wait until September 2022 for the next update
https://uk finance yahoo com/news/shale-oil-newfound-production-discipline-195945466.html
Hope we are learning from others and not spending all our cash in chasing rainbows
Please either return cash to shareholders or do a buy back, if you’re listing, board & Matt :)
www bloombergquint com/markets/flush-with-cash-saudi-prince-snubs-biden-and-sends-a-message
Being invested in ntog i want the price of oil to go higher but looking at silly politics in the above post made a chuckle
Trump probably was good in the end, atleast he stopped the oil cartel by allowing a lot of legislation etc around getting oil from fracking
Higher oil prices might be here to stay, probably a lot of behind the scenes under the table money changing hands
Lennie mate I have answered your first question, maybe our posts crossed each other. If you are happy with the progress I sincerely wish you well and I mean it with all I have.
Good luck and I hope it works out in the end.
Your second question is a genuine error on my part as I read the filing on the companies house and the filing said, "This form was authorised by one of the following:
Director, Secretary, Person Authorised, Liquidator, Administrator, Administrative Receiver, Receiver,
Receiver manager, Charity Commission Receiver and Manager, CIC Manager, Judicial Factor."
This is the change on companies house as they dont give out name of filers. Earlier they used to. I dont know when they changed it.
Again please do your own research. I might be wrong but if the investment is large you'd ofcourse read everything yourself like you are doing and take a calculated call.
Anyway I dont want to contribute any more here. I have said what i observed and once people lose the argument attacks become on personal qualities and not the thing we discuss/argue about.
I sincerely hope metalnrg recovers and goes on to make money for all holders
We might be with one corrupt lot, from the same website there is also the contract of ROLF GERRTTSEN
One observation is his 3 bed apartment was bought in 2016 for 283k whereas prices in that area and apartment 7a was sold in 2014 at 925k. As far as I know London property prices dont fluctuate that much
Looks like one big scam this whole company now. I feel like an idiot and gullible to have not checked earlier.
PIERPAOLO ROCCO's contract is on the company website at this location: www metalnrg com/component/rsfiles/files?folder=AGM
On the contract it clearly states he has rights to acquire upto 50% as part of the pool. I dont see where he might have been wrong or what we can sue him for. He has clearly worked within his contractual obligations.
The Executive has the approval of the Board to participate in the
assembled private investor pool in BritNRG held under BritENERGY
Holdings LLP (which will own 50% total equity of BritNRG). In exercising
his duties as a director of BritNRG the Executive will have regard to the
members as a whole (and not simply MetalNRG – Sect. 172-175 of the
Companies Act), however he will seek to vote alongside MetalNRG.
I think these are questions the board have to answer to its shareholders on why a proper due diligence on ownership structure not done or if done, can we sue the company that did it? Hopefully if we have used an external company it has professional indemnity insurance. If this is our own inhouse work, directors are answerable on what due diligence was conducted before committing shareholder funds.
Giving a guarantee from the parent company is probably still a business decision and cannot be questioned.
I would have liked to see some quantification of how much amount the said suppliers under guarantee are seeking. Since our defence now is that we didnt own BritNRG as it was not acquired properly means we are not relying on any revenue from BritNRG
The worst case scenario would be say the said supplier are seeking 100-200K. This can be easily financed via a placing call. I would expect the supplier to be a little more informed and they would probably would have taken a risk of not more that half of MetalNRG worth. So even then worst case might be a fund raise of £1.5m and then develop the goldridge asset
Its all going to be be messy until this is sorted and not to mention the board will be embroilled in a court battle with not much time available to develop assets. Also less confidence to structure another few "deals" down the line which they said they are good at ! Most will highly doubt that ability
Also these imbecile board and ceo forgot the first reason why someone makes an spv !
The spv is made to shield the main company from liabilities should the spv fail for some reason !
These guys gave a guarantee from the main company to support the spv !
I understand its a small 3m company and probably there are limits to what one can afford in terms of quality of professional advice
I dont know how we can expect them to defend in court if they dont display the basic common sense of running a business
The entire rns is shambles
There is an english case law which I dont recollect to cite but it basically says that if the officer has bound the company in an agreement (in this case as a guarantor) the company is bound. Its not for the creditor to check if the officer had the authorisation to bind it. If eventually it is found out that the officer was not in a position to bind the company, the officer then becomes responsible for the contract.
So their rns about being able to shy away from the guarantor requirement wont hold in court
They can ofcourse take action against Pierpaolo Rocco for not disclosing ownership but it is also a part of due diligence to make sure they are getting what they are paying for. Why couldnt they take a shareholders registrar of BritEnergy Holdings LLP before committing to buy shares
Someone sold MetalNRG, the Brooklyn Bridge and they didnt check if the seller had title to it