Member Info for Lupidog

You point at an enormous delay with DEM. Again trying to deflect from the BoD. Previous comments have also subtly and less subtly tried to side with the shareholders while apportioning/deflecting blame and failings away from the Bod. Someone may have been right calling you PW.

IMO The fault lies squarely with our BoD, not the SA DEM. We already had permissions and they failed to produce, with all of their "expertise" and most of our money. They then reapplied and probably found out what should have been abundantly clear in the pre purchase Due Diligence (which was that there were expensive hoops to jump through). Then hinting at a good relationship with DEM (who are a government department and don't do mates favours) just for the benefit of shareholder placation. Then managing to drag the prior application out for a long time, all the while kicking the can down the road and getting paid. Then failing to secure the PEPR even after so very long. Then applying for a lesser PEPR and giving shareholders false information about a statutory timeframe. And even now you try to find fault with the DEM and not the BoD?

LCCM listing on ASX would certainly give the BoD of said listed LCCM another source of lifestyle income. It would do nothing for us as it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

but we are just talking to ourselves. Its good to dream.

I applause your confidence with the assets. The information for said assets comes from the very people whom have led us this merry dance for going on 3 years. One of those people sold Redmoor to us (himself). Was this confidence in the asset by selling it? Just a way to raise money for NAE? Or even just a way to transfer money from one of his companies to another? I have as much confidence in the assets as I have in the people telling me about the assets. How do you persuade the rest of the BoD of NAE to sell such a valuable asset, while at the same time persuading the BoD of SML to buy it? It is easy to persuade yourself a Chairman of both companies, but the rest of the BoD? You have to down play it to one group and up sell it to the other. How do you put a fair price on it to persuade one group to “let it go it’s not worth it” and the other to “grab it quick, they don’t realise what they have”? Why could NAE not develop it under Alan Broome if it is such a good asset?
Your calculations mean nothing to the Market. With the PEPR lite, your calculations mean nothing. Without proven production ability, your calculations mean nothing. Without a PEPR to mine and produce (which the PEPR lite does not give us), your calculations mean nothing. This is the reality.
You could argue that the 5 year access to Cobre is the £7m mcap. You could argue that LCCM is a liability that owes us millions. You could argue that Redmoor will only become an asset if we can prove up resources before that commodity boat sails. You could argue anything, but you can’t argue with the Markets valuation as their combined experience and risk assessment is far greater than the sum of ours.
IMO and with the best will in the world and the Oxide PEPR and a finance that is not a CLN, we may settle around £15m mcap and then increase to 1p ish if we can prove production. If we have another failed production akin to 3 years ago then we are back here again, this time with more debt.

You can't justify 2p in any of the current scenarios.

Receivers job is to claw back as much cash as possible for the creditors. We are not a creditor.

Rather than "Money from Brenda". I would settle for "No money requested by the receiver in lieu of product purchased and not supplied".

I have always found the SA DEM very helpful and professional. They readily respond to requests and inquiries. I doubt very much if they are at fault here. I very much suspect that they are following their procedures to the letter, in a fair and impartial way.

the first month of Q2. Another pay day for destroying shareholder value.

There are many creditors who lost money and we (as far as I can see) are not one of them, which is why (I am guessing) we had to go to court to get a claim against the contract default. Who comes first in order of preference under state law, creditors or legal claimants. I would suggest creditors (but that is only my opinion and not legal fact) as they have been defrauded and have lost money due to illegal enterprise. If the Stay is not lifted we get nothing. That is the news we should be watching for.

V O X M A R K E T S

fill in "**********"

Yes Croutom Thank you.
Details - Assessment: DSD & External Agencies
Circulation
Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division
Start:25/03/2022
End:28/04/2022

I think some of you need to actually research what you are saying.
Perspective is a wonderful thing. Let’s use some below:
Southern Minerals Group, LLC v. CV Investments LLC
Receiver has recovered some $7.5m usd (So at best currently we may end up with a share of this).
Southern Minerals Group, LLC v. CV Investments LLC, No. 2:20-cv-02643. On August 4, 2020, the Receiver, through Counsel, filed a Notice of Stay in that action (Unless this is removed our claim will go no further).
Then look at the costs involved for even more perspective.
Receiver and Counsel Fees Hourly Rates:
Receiver $510
Andrew Gallinaro Partner $365
Associate $240 - $330
Paraprofessional $165

Accountant’s Fees Hourly Rates:
Michael Shanahan, Managing Director $550
Managing Director/Senior Director $550 - $725
Directors/Managers $425 - $525
Sr. Associates/Associates $275 - $375

And if this is not enough feel free to peruse the other claims and then justify in order of US Law preference.

DVH We were on the CUSP of production at LCCM in early 2019, with all permissions for said production, 1.4bn shares in issue and an mcap circa 24m. At the same time AB was selling himself the final 50% of Redmoor and we did not require finance to produce. So everyone (especially AB) was on a rebound high from our drop from the lofty 3p's. All of us thinking it was turning around again in our favour.
3 years later we no longer have permission to produce and wait for a PEPR with 2bn shares in issue. We still have no idea if the new production will be successful (given the last fail from our experts). We need finance to the tune of more than our current mcap (which our financial expert has failed to produce) and are staring down the barrel of a £10m CLN. This has the potential to half our share value and cancel any gains made until production is proven successful and has paid back what it already owes us. LCCM is the gift that keeps on taking and Redmoor is the gift that keeps on giving, but only to AB.
People may get a bag here, but that hardly takes us anywhere near what it owes most LTH. My opinion on £30m mcap with PEPR and finance was hobbled by the failure to achieve the vaulted PEPR and instead leaves us languishing with PEPR lite and the possibility of a LN will tether us to these depths and sink us if it comes to fruition.

Have you seen the funds they have recovered (before fees)? It is mentioned in every report.

This will all come out at the AGM. So bring sandwiches for the long haul.

There lies part of the problem Croutom. We have to rely on information from the BoD as to the state and value of our assets. The Market does not believe their spin. Investors do not believe their spin and LTH have found out the hard way that their words mean nothing. If our assets had value, that would reflect in the mcap. Why would anyone believe today that our assets are as described, given the nature of communications from the BoD over the past few years. If Redmoor was so good, why would Mr Broome (NAE) sell it? If LCCM was so good why was it given away with a cash incentive to take it? Too many comments, statements and too many questionable interactions. All of which has led us to this mcap. I don't speak or assume to opine for anyone else. I have simply been here and watched what was said on behalf of the company and what has actually occurred. This is IMO a lifestyle company with directors who have so little confidence in this hand that they play many tables in the hope that one will eventually pay off while we (and all the other tables) keep them personally financially comfortable. It is hard to accept that we are personally at fault, but having read the signs. I blame myself 100% for ignoring the blatantly obvious and staying invested.

They usually dilute, just after saying they won't.
The latest LCCM quote "operational this year". Groundhog day.