PYX Resources: Achieving volume and diversification milestones. Watch the video here.
Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68025903
UK billionaire Joe Lewis, whose family trust owns Tottenham Hotspur football club, has pleaded guilty to insider trading in a US court.
Lewis, 86, was accused of passing info about companies he invested in to his private pilots, friends, personal assistants and girlfriends.
US authorities say that the fraud netted millions of dollars in profit.
Lewis pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and two counts of securities fraud and will be sentenced in March.
The COPL Shareholder Group need to look at a few connections in more detail.
Richard Paul Mays was a COPL Director for around 4 years between 2014 and 2018. He is now a chairman at MILTON CAPITAL PLC.
MILTON CAPITAL PLC was part owned by Richard Paul Mays and Peterhouse Capital Limited, but the latter ceased being a shareholder on 4 October 2022.
Both companies, Milton Capital PLC and Peterhouse Capital Limited reside at 3rd Floor, 80, Cheapside, London, England, EC2V 6EE.
A gentleman by the name of Thomas John Zacchaeus WINNIFRITH was a Director at Peterhouse Capital Limited between 3 July 2007 and 31 January 2008, and again, between 19 December 2008 and 6 April 2009. The Company is owned by CEO Peter James Greensmith.
Https://webfiles.thecse.com/COPL_-_RNS_Director_Change_20230118_Final.pdf?pTeQoF530u8TZA_lTTrhxl_9PI43KeBD
• Mr. Peter Kravitz has been appointed as interim Chief Executive Officer;
• Mr. Mark Wall has joined its Board as a Non Executive Director to replace Mr. Atul Gupta who has stepped down.
Trujack, in response to your 12:34 post yesterday. Tell your friend on telegram to try harder at his rebuttal. It doesn’t seem as though your friend is even a shareholder.
1. AM said he was going to publish the RS report, which he wouldn't have said if he was being denied by Ryder Scott.
2. Of course the company are under no obligation to release information about the JV process and they wouldn't want to either because it will expose them. This has to be forced out of them to help us, the shareholders, determine WTF is going on with our company.
3. The balance sheet may be published every quarter but it doesn't have a breakdown of creditors / debtors, which is what I specifically mentioned in my comment. The $135m figure only accounts for the creditors – anyone with any financial knowledge would know assets minus liabilities equals net assets so why would the Board only highlight one aspect of the balance sheet to make out we’re in a weaker position than we actually are. We need to get the RS report to calculate the asset value plus add equipment, plant and machinery, etc. to this then add the current assets like cash in the bank (c.$1m), debtors, stock, etc. then deduct the liabilities, which were stated as $135m in last weeks update.
4. Of course they don’t need to release details of their contracts with supplier’s like lawyers but this helps shareholders determine any wrongdoing. Why would we, the shareholders, stump up more cash for this incompetent Board, if we can’t determine this and be satisfied that there wasn’t any financial irregularity. Also, if the company were in such a dire financial situation, why would their lawyers agree to provide services knowing they wouldn’t get paid? Lawyers fee are probably included in the $135m creditors figure, and we need to determine if these are genuine costs or whether they have been included to weaken the balance sheet to steal the company from shareholders. There may be other irregularities that need to be determined once we have the breakdown of figures.
5. There hasn’t been a lot of detail about production issues. The BoD have kept raising funds to increase production but failed at every attempt. If you accept the information that the COPL BoD has released then you are also part of the problem.
6. If the company stopped injecting NGLs because the lender stopped them then this was material information that had to be released immediately, especially when the CEO specifically mentioned his main focus was to increase NGL injection in Q4 2023 to raise production, and increase production to 2000bpd by Q1 2024.
7. You say yourself that previous business plans haven’t worked, which is why it’s important to include proposed steps to improve production to make the company profitable and/or terms for the sale of the Company's assets. Details of both options need to be made public. If the preferred option is to increase production then a business strategy should be developed to ensure production targets are achieved. The company themselves say they will create a new business plan, so not sure what point is being made here.
8. Its good to get confirmation about who the actual two brokers were that were mentioned in last week’s update, that the BoD spoke to about a capital raise and understand why their opinion dictated whether there was institutional interest in funding on the same terms or better than those proposed by Anavio?
9. It is up to the individual shareholders to determine whether “It would violate those shareholders privacy rights to publicly say who they were.” This is material information and will support the shareholders case that shareholders weren’t asked whether they would invest on the same terms that those proposed by Anavio. My insinuation is that the BoD has made up the idea of making telephone calls to shareholders to cover their backs. Again, if you accept what they’re telling you then you are part of the problem.
10. Cash flow issues have been getting worse and worse and the position the BoD have put the company in has been getting weaker and weaker over time. Cash flow issues haven’t been as a single event i.e. Cuda purchase, they have been many steps. The BoD had a choice to accept the terrible terms offered by the bond holder or be honest and transparent with shareholders then conduct a capital raise, we know what option they chose, the question is WHY? The BoD are of the opinion they couldn’t conduct a capital raise because they were cornered by the BH due to the terrible terms they agreed to, but this is clearly just a smokescreen.
11. The BoD had to have done due diligence in case the JV talks failed, which needs to be shared with shareholders. We need to determine why the company backed themselves into a corner unnecessarily? If they were competent, they would have a plan b, and be ready to execute this if the JV talks failed. Why did they put themselves in a position to fail if the JV talks ended without agreement?
12. Shareholders are owners of the company and can determine answers whenever they want, and not just at AGMs. We can also call an EGM and take the necessary legal action to protect our interests. Again, very strange thing to say as a shareholder.
As others have alluded to, we should take the comments by the BoD on 10 January 2024 with a pinch of salt and question everything they have tried to address.
If the Large Shareholder Group continue to engage with the Board assuming they’re playing with a straight bat then there are several things that you need to push for immediately. If the Board don’t provide the information then they should not be trusted.
1. We need immediate release of the RS report. The JVP has probably seen this. The SL and BH have probably had a copy. Why should the shareholders not have a copy especially when it was promised a long time ago.
2. We need detailed information of the JV process. Who were the JV party? Why did they walk away from negotiations after 15 months of discussions? Did the JVP make any offers to take interest in all/part of COPLs acreage? What were the sticking points in discussions? What due diligence did the JVP conduct?
3. The balance sheet needs to be forensically examined. The 10 January update states secured and unsecured creditors stand in excess of $135m compared with approx $1m of cash on hand on a group wide basis. We need a breakdown of each creditor and amount they’re owed. We also need to know how much of this figure is secured and how much is unsecured. We need a breakdown of debtors as well to calculate the net debt of the group. A copy of the current balance sheet and all current financial statements need to be provided.
4. We need details of COPLs legal fees. Also, need to see the terms of engagement between COPL and their lawyers and find out why they agreed to take shares as a form of payment because this isn’t usually standard procedure.
5. The BoD needs to address production issues over the last 24 months.
6. Also, why did the Company stop natural gas and NGL purchases late 2023 after raising funds to do this. We were told by the CEO on 6 Oct 2023 that his entire focus is to deliver increased production at field site through increasing Q4 NGL injectant.
7. A business plan needs to be created immediately. This needs to include proposed steps to improve production to make the company profitable and/or terms for the sale of the Company's assets. Details of both options need to be made public. If the preferred option is to increase production then a business strategy should be developed to ensure production targets are achieved.
8. We need to know who the two brokers that the BoD approached were and why did their opinion dictate whether there was institutional interest in funding on the same terms or better than those proposed by Anavio?
9. We need to know which shareholders the BoD approached for funding, is there evidence of these telephone calls, and why did they not make an official announcement requesting expressions of interest from shareholders when cash flow issues were identified?
10. According to the “Update in Response to Shareholder Queries” dated 10 January, cash flow issues were identified a long time ago when the SP was much higher. Why wasn’t a capital raise conducted then to avoid such huge dilution now? The share price was allowed to be decimated without any significant updates to shareholders and when JV talks terminated, the Board had little time to respond to the immediate requirement for funds.
11. It seems the SL agreed to extend the repayment date based on JV talks nearing completion. What due diligence did the Board consider if JV talks failed to conclude positively?
12. There needs to be accountability for decimating shareholder value. The CEO has resigned but the Board needs to be restructured to improve investor confidence and must include at least one shareholder representative.
Once the above matters are resolved, the Board can pursue a capital raise.
The raise should be in the form of an open offer to existing shareholders to buy for example, up to 5 new shares for 1 existing share held at an execution price of £0.0020 (better than the current offer of £0.0015). If Anavio are genuine, they will accept this proposal because their priority should be to recover the monies they provided to the company via bonds, which the raise and new business strategy would address. Anavio should also accept to underwrite the raise to avoid it failing as this could result in administration leading up to the loss of their unsecured debt.
The raise could generate around £10m, which should be more than sufficient to meet the requirements of the business plan.
The above needs to be communicated to the Senior Lender and an amendment/extension needs to be sought immediately to provide time to address all of the above matters.
An EGM needs to be held at the earliest in the UK for shareholders to get clarification about the details and approve the amended raise mentioned above.
The process the BoD are currently pursuing is not in the interests of all stakeholders. The Board want to pay back the SL then give control of the company to the bond holder leaving shareholders with very little. The process highlighted above is fair and protects all stakeholders. The proposed transaction needs to be cancelled and replaced with a new one addressing all stakeholders. If the BoD were fair, they would’ve opened up the transaction offered to Anavio to existing shareholders to invest on the same terms.
I may have missed some important details, feel free to make suggestions/comments.
Allowing the Chief Restructuring Officer to dictate the future direction of the company comes with very high risk. The assertion that he will be truly independent is not true. He will be appointed to do a specific job and if he’s dishonest like members of the Board, then he won’t care about protecting the interests of shareholders. Arthur Millholland destroyed shareholder value then left the company, the previous CEO, John Cowan did the same. The CRO whether he’s independent or not won’t be any different.
Anavio Capital Partners LLP are on the FCA Financial Services Register:
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000h5SoPAAU#what-can-this-firm-do-restrictions
I received an email from the FCA this morning and it seems they're taking the matter seriously, which is a surprise. I contacted them on Monday and expected to be fobbed off by Tuesday.
I'm not going to copy and paste the response from them but would urge you all to email the FCA mentioning Anavio Capital Partners LLP and the bonds offered to the BoD. Copy in:
market.abuse@fca.org.uk, press.office@fca.org.uk and complaints.scheme@fca.org.uk.
Also, regarding comms with the ASC. I sent them another email on 4th January in response to the generic response to all shareholders but haven't heard anything back from them yet, which is a positive sign because they're probably taking time to investigate further. I would urge you all to contact the ASC again to apply pressure. The update from the company last night was probably as a direct result of the action taken by the shareholder group in Canada.
''Related Content. A notice given under either section 708AA or 708A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA 2001) that facilitates an issue or sale of securities quoted on a financial market, usually the ASX, without the need for more fulsome disclosure under Chapter 6D of the CA 2001.''
It's been pointed out that lending by Anavio Capital Partners LLP (UK Reg.) to COPL would've probably been made using the AUMs from their Cayman Islands listed company, Anavio Equity Capital Markets Fund LP (Cayman Islands Reg.).
The two Directors of the CI division are Arthur Dzaghgouni and Taavi Keith Arthur Keskinen Davies. There's plenty of information on these two individuals online. The two are named as Directors of the General Partner and Anavio Capital Partners LLP (UK Registered.) are named as the Investment Manager.
I'm trying to get info on the ownership structure, once I know the shareholders of the CI entity then I should have a better idea of who's pulling the strings. If others can conduct some reasearch too, that would be appreciated.
Anavio Equity Capital Markets Fund GP Limited, Ugland House, PO Box 309, Grand Cayman, CAYMAN ISLANDS.
I'm doing some further digging on the Company.
Anavio Capital Partners, a limited liability partnership was registered at Companies House in the UK on 14 November 2014. It's founders included BTG Pactual colleagues Daniel Horsley, Emiliano Leggieri and Michael Bancroft, together with former Goldman Sachs banker Dario Sacchetti.
Damon Phillip Barber was appointed on 1 July 2015 and resigned on 30 November 2016. He started working for TOSCAFUND ASSET MANAGEMENT LLP in December 2016 as COO, and was appointed as a Director on 16 January 2017. He holds other directorships as well. Toscafund Asset Management LLP are/were a shareholder of COPL.
MR MICHAEL BANCROFT resigned as a Director of the Company in 2016 but is now registered as residing in Switzerland. A company name Anvalad AG is also registered at the same address. There is also a company names Anvalad Deutschland GmbH registered in Germany.
Mr Dario Sacchetti is now the only person shareholder in the company. Interestingly he incorporated a new company named, TEVERE CAPITAL LIMITED on 17 April 2023. Other minoroty shareholders are Sebastian Fernandez and Jonathan Howard.
Shelley-Anne Smith is a Director at Tevere Capital Limited, and is also a fellow Director at ANAVIO CAPITAL PARTNERS SERVICES (UK) LIMITED, which is now 100% owned by Dario Sacchetti. Mr Daniel Edward Isaac Horsley who's nationality is British American ceased his holding on 30 November 2020.
Mr Dario Sacchetti is also affiliated with ALE & GAIA HOLDINGS LIMITED and ELENAIT LIMITED, which has just been incorporated.
I'm sure there are audit trails left. Will continue to dig further.
I have just posted a screenshot on X that shows ANAVIO CAPITAL PARTNERS LLP had £193,474 cash on their balance sheet at year end 2022. How can a company with such a low bank balance be able to steal 1bn barrels of oil from COPL shareholders? Where did they obtain the funds from to lend to COPL in the first place?
Private Investors on this bb probably invested more money than these guys had at the time of their last financial statements.
They had £162k in the bank in 2021 and only £345 in 2020. Unbelievable that these guys are our bond holders.
Thanks RBMInvest. I'll definitely be reading the bb over the next few days.
Smalltrader1, you're right not to trust anyone on a bb. I've explained a potential mechanism that we can pursue, and I'm happy for someone else to take the lead on this. They will have my full backing.
Dougb189, I agree with your 05:22 post but would like to add that 10% of the share capital has to be retained by retail investors to keep the listing active. This is the minimum private investors can expect to retain from any type of restructure. This explains why the SP hasn't dropped much lower than the 0.15 BH conversion price.
I appreciate the effort by RBMInvest and others. I reported the COPL BoD and Anavio to the ASC yesterday and would urge other shareholders to do the same: https://www.asc.ca/complain-or-report/
Time is against us but we need to act now. I've run shareholder action groups previously and I'm currently involved with a couple now. These groups are very difficult to manage but I would urge someone to take the initiative and set one up. I don't have the time to manage this unfortunately but could offer my assistance to any long term holder.
There is clear evidence of negligence by the BoD, and there may be wrongdoing too. It’s hard to prove the latter but if class action for negligence is pursued then it may provide evidence of wrongdoing. I'm liaising with a reputable law firm regarding another company I'm invested in who are willing to take the case on a no-win-no-fee basis. It might be an idea to pursue this route.
The law firm would first need to understand the basis of our case against the COPL BoD and also calculate the potential claim value to see if its worth taking on.
The Board of Directors of listed companies are required to have suitable insurance in place to cover such claims, but if there's evidence of wrongdoing then Board members can be held to account personally.
There have been some great posts today by the likes of garybaines, stas20, harrywh, tonlin, and others. It's clear that shareholders have been misled and the BoD have failed in their fiduciary duties. Shareholders need to come together and take action to protect their interests.
# of Trades 444
Vol Sold 44,208,048
Vol Bought 63,434,431
I'm not sure how the price is being kept this low. Folks have reported that their buys are showing as sells too.
I doubled my holding this morning to reduce my average to 1.4p. It's a big risk but like a few others have said, there's much more to the story than we're being told. This could be a positive or negative though. However, I do expect some kind of agreement with the Senior Lender or alternative funding to kick the can down the road.
HeresHopin, well done on the overall profit on Amigo. No need to rub it in my face though. Its good to stay humble and show some humility. I have a wide portfolio including high risk / high reward shares, sometimes you win and other times you lose. The situation with Amigo is still ongoing, so I won't comment further because I'm directly involved as you would know.