Member Info for Muck165

My reading - the order published yesterday resulted from the hearing on 1 July and, whilst it related to just a couple of the interlocutory applications, the final order directed that ALL interlocutories (of which there are many) be brought together into a single hearing on the 7th. The fact a specific time was given (12.30) also adds weight to my feeling that 7 August is likely a full blown hearing to hash everything out and finalise matters.

That will be make or break I think.

Beretta - who knows, but it wouldn't surprise me. After all, where else is Vast getting cash from on a basis which wouldn't necessarily require market notification?

To me though the diamonds are feeling just like another mirage, useful to get raises away, but something AP has continuously kicked down the road for months and months. The question is why.

Hugop - yep, although I think realistically I am looking to the middle of next week if the current longstop is to be hit.

Tuvok - be careful, if the RTO doesn't proceed then readmission to trading won't be automatic - that is why Vast said it would "seek" readmission to trading. Both AIM regulation and the Nomad will have to be satisfied that Vast continues to be appropriate for an AIM listing considering its cash position, working capital needs, debt, and whether its still an operating business etc.

Unless the remaining diamonds, which were supposed to be entering the sales process over 2 months ago, have hugely significant value then I find it very difficult to see how Vast can meet the AIM Regulation and Nomad thresholds given it likely has zero cash, massive debt on which they have defaulted, and mines that aren't operating (and may even have lost their licences to).

The is why the RTO, and the raise in particular, are the last Hail Mary here. It fails, personally I think Vast is gone.

CIQ, after months of silence on Linkedin, put this out today.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/connected-iq_agenticai-adtech-programmatic-activity-7480202403930173440-Q2t0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAEuI5eIBooawepY_Ubn_CKcFOzTXAaBN1HA

Interesting I think that the post says almost nothing about contextualised CTV targeting (which lets face it is what CIQ is all about) and is instead all about agentic automation in the campaign buying process. That is Pubmatic, but also Pubx.

I called the Nomad to say that the AIM Rule 26 info on the Gfinity site is wrong and hasn't been updated in the last 12 months as required by the rules. They are to get that fixed, but its an innocuous thing. Honestly, I just want to see if the major shareholders percentages have reduced through the dilutions we have seen or not. If Farzad hasn't added, for example, then he will have dropped below 3% and we should have had a TR1.

Interestingly though, the person I spoke with said "I will pass your query onto one of my colleagues, who is actually dealing with Gfinity right now."

Why would they be dealing with Gfinity "right now"?

Make of that, if anything, as you will.

Yup!

"Early July" seems to be the next informal deadline for updates on developments.

Be interesting to know where Vast are scratching cash from to keep going. Have they sold more diamonds and not told us?

Well, time has given us the answer I think. 2 weeks or so on from the 22nd and there has been no automatic cancellation under AIM 41

That can only mean AIM regulation has used its discretion to allow the listing to remain suspended, not cancelled.

And as I have said, I just don't believe they would have done that unless they, and indeed Strand Hanson, are sufficiently satisfied the admission document and proposed raise are close to completion.

Fact is, Aim Regulation are in the business of protecting investors. Leaving things as they are and giving the RTO the best chance is the best way of doing that I think because, without the RTO (or more pertinently the associated raise), Vast is a dead duck.

But I don't think they will allow time to run forever, and so my bet (currently) is that we will get the AD by mid July.

Yentra seems to me to be in exactly the right space when you see the CEO of Palantir vociferously highlighting the data control, and business, risks of Enterprises using Frontier LLM’s rather than controlling their own data stacks and cost.

No wonder DH reposted this piece. Worth a read through, and to watch the vid at the end.

I sent it to Natie for interest - his reply “Seen that. It’s what I’ve been saying for the past 3 years”.

https://x.com/_The_Prophet__/status/2072360288779927955

Note too, AIM rules changed in Jan such that, unlike previously, trading does not need to be suspended in RTO situations.

Don’t know about anyone else, but I can think of any number of reasons why Pubx would want a public listing.

And I can think any number of reasons why it would be hugely beneficial to us holders, to Halley, to Mole, and to RK.

Might explain the persistent and aggravating silence. Or this could just be guff.

If, like me, you think there is something bigger in play between Pubx and CIQ/Gfin, then this is well worth a watch.

Demonstrates clearly what Pubx are doing right at the frontier of what they describe as transformative change.

Really, well worth a watch.

https://revving.io/agentic-advertising-publishers-platforms-payments/?utm_content=583660731&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin&hss_channel=lcp-82879212

For anyone that missed it, Koneqt (our Yentra JV partner) overhauled its site again this week. Interesting to read what it says about Evolve.

https://koneqt.com/

I speak to Natie on LinkedIn, and it’s clear Yentra’s has lots going on. He’s naturally careful about what he can say, but has said this;

“There is new product, it is complete and is planned for official release within the next two weeks (an easier system to adopt than EVOLVE - has parts of it in it). It already has potential customers, and we're just finalising a few details ahead of the broader launch. There's nothing confidential or secretive about it. Like I mentioned a while back -  lot is going on.”

Given there’s “nothing confidential or secret” about it, thought others might be interested.

Of course there’s risk in this Roger. That’s the name of the AIM game. That’s also where rewards come.

The position today is no different than it was on the 25th. And that appears to be a stronger position than before the 25th.

Ultimately this is now for the Courts to decide if a binding OTS agreed following a Swiss Challenge is worth the paper it’s written on.

“Funny.. what an earth were you expecting to read in the current situation??

Exactly Ian.

My sense is MPL are doing everything possible to protect value arising out of years of effort and risk, and that naturally has operational consequences. But I’d much rather that than they roll over.

And tbh, the litigation is certainly looking more promising. Sure, we’re up against domestic power and influence, and just bleating about inequity won’t get us far given the broad discretion Indian Courts have given creditors when making decisions.

But we have strength if proper process wasn’t followed and what seems to have happened, a closed minded tock box exercise, is a very far cry from what the Courts specifically ordered creditors to do.

If I can find the relevant order I’ll post their exact language, but it was if I recall stronger than even MPL paraphrased in RNS.

Well, they came out on time so that puts any question of suspension to bed.

And I have to say, having only skim read them, that I didn't find anything surprising.

Given the time stamp and price , that trade was definitely a buy.

Would be a ballsy play to stick £50k into a stock that could be suspended and is facing uncertain litigation.

But someone did. More money than sense, or knows something?

Yep - don't know what that is. Sure we could figure it out but that would mean reading through the whole case file.

There is the main case. Then there are a whole suite of interlocutory matters relating to the main case.

There are indeed other interlocutories scheduled for different dates. I just think its interesting that we knew on here many many days before MPL told us that the new hearing was set for 1 July, yet MPL waited until the 25th, after the interlocutory on the 24th, to tell us. And of course in telling us they gave us new information about why the case has strengthened.

I don't know more than that. But I do think we will get accounts today because I think MPL had a perfect opp on 25th to tell us if there was to be a delay and they didn't, and I do think new information was presented to MPL on 24th. I could easily be wrong but, like I say, I bought some today.

Yes

Well, it might explain 2 things

1) Why they waited so long to tell is when the new hearing date was

2) Why the original hearing never took place (because they needed the interlocutory dealt with first)

Just conjecture, but makes sense to me

An observation

Latest NCLT filings show an interlocutory hearing was due to take place on 17 June, but didn't go ahead because of a "paucity of time". It was relisted for 24 June. No order from that hearing has yet been published, but the timing is interesting given the RNS which followed the day after. Not inconceivable to me that something happened on the 24th, presenting new info to MPL, which they relayed to us on 25th.

Could easily be wrong. Just an observation