Member Info for Mitch984

"900k bought at 3.8p......they may have an idea how the negotiations are going. "

That was a delayed trade from Friday lunchtime though, and the highest-priced other buy Friday I think was a small one at 3.50p. Which is probably why the share price today stayed at 3.50p.

I agree however that we should know something more certain in the next week or two, and that the signs are positive!

I would be happy after all this time with even a quarter-decent payday. In fact, any form of payday! :)

Does this morning's RNS mean the deadline with Summit has also been extended to 31 August?

The previous Cleansing Prospectus RNS extended it to 31 May, the same date as the Summit team sheet/proposed financing.

Hi Extrader,

I think I read somewhere that it was 75% of the votes from shareholders present at the shareholders meeting that would have to be called, rather than of all shareholders. I may well be very wrong though.

I've overly suspicious to be honest, mainly because of the murky ownership structure - but also because of locking in Guava to a 6 month no-sell period on their 80 million shares. I still haven't worked out in my head the reason for that other than the new shareholders possibly needing their support in a vote situation during that 6 month lock-in period. Although why Guava would even want to sell at this stage is beyond me.

Time will tell. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

"Companies delist due to lack of funding options. "

Not necessarily true. Companies delist because it is sometimes a very cheap way for the majority shareholders to take a company private.

For example, if a majority group of Zioc shareholders offered the rest of the shareholders 10p a share to buy them out, that majority group could own a sufficient % of the total shareholding to get it passed - despite the objections of us private/small holders who would vote against the 10p offer.

I don't think it will happen, but in theory it can.

I did say this back on 14 April:-

"Even when KP2 do get the Financial Term Sheet, they may then take several weeks to review it and negotiate aspects of it before they reveal the details to us. So the next RNS may just be to say they have received it and are reviewing it."

So its no surprise - to me anyway! :)

Marcus, I agree with what AI says about it being unlikely that Zioc would be taken private.

What still concerns me though is the murky information about who the ultimate beneficial owners of Greymont, Eagle Eye, and Regatta actually are. No DTR5 notifications (via TR1s) have been filed by any of them, which is totally against AIM rules (and which also shows how ineffective AIM rules are at the end of the day). Compare this with the relative transparency of our previous major shareholders - Guava Minerals (still a major), Higgins and Everitt.

"Directors have to act in the best interest of ALL Shareholders".

Yes, that is true. but in reality on AIM it does not happen. There are many many examples on AIM over the years of companies being taken private to line the pockets of directors.

I am not at all saying it will happen here, as Jivin has mentioned several valid reasons why it will not. But , on AIM, "Directors have to act in the best interest of ALL Shareholders" is not one of them.

If we did get screwed via a Zioc delisting, our only recourse would be for small shareholders to take very expensive legal action against the board, which would take years. That is why the obligation for directors to act in the best interest of shareholders is just about worthless on AIM.

Whether you are right or wrong Jivin, yesterday's share action has never happened before on Zioc withour rumour-type pumping. Not in the 8+ years I have been a holder anyway.

As I say, there have been plenty of pumps based on vague rumours, but never deliberate buys/sells designed to up the share price. If that indeed was the purpose then it surely will continue today too?

My worry actually is that it was one of the new major shareholders is accumulating to get the consortium over 75% in order to delist - and screw us all!

Either way, I just don't think yesterday's volume was anything to do with pump/dump or manipulation. When that has happened in the past, the pump has been from individual small sharehoders via X/Twitter and Forums. Not anyone with £150k to try it with.

This is more than interesting - this is the first significant share price rise that I can recall that was not caused by rumours (and pumping) on Twitter/X etc. (Spurious Saudi conference attendances etc etc etc)

Even positive RNS announcements have not produced this sort of activity before. Not in the past five years anyway.

Tomorrow and next week will be interesting....

Even when KP2 do get the Financial Term Sheet, they may then take several weeks to review it and negotiate aspects of it before they reveal the details to us.

So the next RNS may just be to say they have received it and are reviewing it.

Personally I have always felt we need a buy-out to get the maximum value for our shares. There is just not enough volume on AIM for the share price to get anywhere near 100p under its own steam.

A key for me is how many shares are now owned by Marty and AT. All the other main shareholders are relatively rich already from their previous ventures. For Marty and AT however, it is their own life-changing opportunity to become very wealthy.

We know from the RNS that Marty now has 7.7 million shares. Has it ever been announced how many AT has? I don't think it was ever released how many he was awarded in lieu of salary etc.

Like the rest of us, I'm assuming both Marty and AT would like to realise value for their shares sooner rather than later. Would they be happy at a 60p per share buy-out (the value Shard gave in March as their base case valuation)?

Pure speculation of course, but I do hope they would both like to be very wealthy in the next year or two, as I am sure they will both have a big influence on the direction Zioc will take as regards a buy-out or developing the mine with a strategic partner.

Like many LTHs on here, I am not getting any younger and do not therefore have a lot of patience left. So my preference has to be for a buy-out, even at a fraction of what the mine would be worth in ten years time. GLA.

Getting rid of Glencore was not really down to Marty - AT had been working on that for years.

Marty has still to prove himself in my view. His interview last year that caused the short-term share price rise was nothing short of irresponsible and naive for a Chief Exec at this level.

Hopefully with the team that we now have on board as shareholders, my view will change. But I'm slightly with Vet on this at present - Marty still has a lot to come up with to justify his salary and shares.

"Jokes aside, how many other investments do you know of where an investor's expectation is a minimum of a 200%+ return in the next 2-3 years with upside potential of 500%+?"

ZIOC

In the same country and in a similar position to KP2 as regards incoming finance.

Chonkalonka has got this exactly correct in my view.

The big upturn in the share price will come from a buy-out rather than the impending finance announcement - although we will of course see some decent increase in the share price once financing is announced.

I stand correct. Many thanks for that, Y00020978.

Cheers!

I'm also confused about the reason for the delay. I thought Summit was exclusively a Chinese consortium, which would not at all be affected by Eid etc.

Of course, if the proposed financing had a strong middle east element, it would be. I'm in Dubai at the moment, and all offices are closed until Wednesday for Eid, which celebrates the end of Ramadan.

My main worry, as with Zioc if anyone here is invested in both, is being taken private at (say) 2p per share. AIM has a history of small private shareholders like ourselves being screwed.

Very surprised at Shaun's niaivity, as he usually makes decent comments on here.

Being taken private is also a worry of mine, especially when I read in the RSN that Guava (Elphick) were tied to a six month lock in (there has to be a reason for that).

If the intention is to screw small shareholders like ourselves, we could be taken private for less than 10p per share. A fraction of what the company is worth. 75% votes is needed for that to happen. I initially though that had to be 75% of the total shareholdings. However, as Extrader said, it is actually 75% of the votes at a meeting. And that is a concern.

I have no idea if I'm worrying without cause, but Shaun is totally wrong to say we wll protected if it happens. We would in fact be screwed over - as many AIM small shareholders have been in the past.

Eagle Eye Asset Holdings Ltd is the holding company for the Gupta/Arise shareholding, as per Extrader over on the other forum.

So definitely interesting, but not anyone new buying in.

"Mitch.

On the London Stock Exchange (LSE), an "AT" trade refers to an Automated Trade. This means the trade was executed automatically through the exchange’s electronic order book, rather than being manually negotiated between counterparties."

Aaargh! I clearly should not read or post after coming back from the pub! However to be safe, I will email Andrew Trahar and ask him to change his surname so there is no future confusion between AT and AT. :)