Member Info for Muck165

Yup. And it’s interesting to see that all of the vast Directors and NEDs have agreed the lock in given that some of them don’t currently own any stock and aren’t currently beneficiaries under the SAR scheme. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the reason for that is that they’ll all be given stock somehow as part of the transaction.

Yep Gemstar.

I’ve not checked, but I think some time in Q4 2023 we were appointed by Bay Square to conduct DD for it into Gulf before they bought 100% of it in or around Q1/2 of 2024. Then in around the October of 2024 we had a routine BP operating report, right at the bottom of which was snuck in an “off the cuff” disclosure that AP had personally bought a 17.8% “interest” in Gulf (nothing to do with BP). Of course we now know that “interest” came through buying 17.8% of Bay Square, and not 17.8% of Gulf directly. And here we are, just over a year later, where AP can expect to materially benefit from that interest. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

The way the disclosure was made and the timing of AP buying in all smells a bit funny in my opinion, and makes me wonder how long this RTO plan has been in people’s minds. The technical team brought in to evaluate our various resources, for example, now seems instead to have been brought in to prepare reports to support the RTO prospectus, and I’ve never really liked the involvement of Formin given that its primary shareholder, Vasile Albulescu, has I think other involvement with Central Asia Investments Ltd. Vasile, by the way, is one of the parties that has agreed to a 12 month lock in and has been mooted, by some, to be the Vast shareholder that provided property security to Alpha (a Romanian hotel he owns I think). And then there is some chap called Algarash, also locked in, that attended that Takob opening back in 2023 (I think).

It just looks to me like after Bay Square bought Gulf, various people connected with Vast bought in (AP +Fletcher definitely, and Albulescu, Alogorash likely), all of which now stand to personally take very significant ownership chunks of Vast after we, the existing shareholders, suffer massive dilution to pay off debts that all along we have been told should have been covered by the diamonds.

If Albulescu is the one providing security to Alpha, then all this might help explain why he hasn’t taken action to enforce his corresponding security against Vast given Alpha has enforced theirs.

Overall, I think we retail shareholders are being used and treated like mugs.

As I say, this is all based on my recollections and so I’m happy to be corrected if it’s wrong!

Disco - this just smacks of there being an opportunity for Gulf that it doesn’t have the capital to progress, and cannot access itself in the markets. So it reverses into a company that does. Sure, the whole thing is going to dilute the hell out of existing shareholders, but it might be worth it if, say, the Taj govt put Gulf front and centre in its critical mineral operations. Who knows - but as you say, there must be more to things because otherwise this proposal looks an absolute shocker!

We gave authority to issue up to 6.32bn shares in the 2024 AGM.

Even if that authority is still valid (which I’m not at all certain it is), AP just doesn’t have authority to issue 7.5bn shares (assuming a 0.1 issue price) unless we give it to him.

So whatever happens there is going to have to be a vote.

The only potential positive I can see from all this is if AP has significant Taj deals lined up for Gulf.

Agree ASI - the law, as well as our own articles require there to be an AGM.

AP can’t have one this year now because 21 clear days notice is required,

So why hasn’t he called one? It’s not just the issuing authorities that need to be refreshed, but also reappointment of the auditor and at least 2 directors that are required to retire by rotation. And in truth, I struggle to understand what news (good or bad) could lead to the delay.

My money is simply on AP wanting to avoid shareholder questions.

Just on a technical point

“ I pointed out that if the share price rises to 0.1 it enables AP to run a placing — which it does”

True, no placing could be done at below 0.1.

But to issue new stock (t any valid price), AP must have valid and continuing shareholder authority to do so. The last authority we gave was at the 2024 AGM - the resolution said;

“ That the Directors be and they are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised pursuant to the Act, to exercise all the powers of the Company to allot shares in the Company or grant rights to subscribe for or convert any security into shares in the Company ("Rights") up to an aggregate nominal amount of £6,320,000 (being 6,320miilion Ordinary Shares representing 242% of the Company's existing issued share capital) and such authority shall, unless previously revoked or varied by the Company in general meeting, expire on the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting of the Company to be held in 2025 provided that the Company may, at any time before such expiry, make an offer or enter into an agreement which would or might require shares to be allotted after such expiry and the Directors may allot relevant shares or grant Rights to any such offer or agreement as if the authority conferred hereby had not expired.”

So the authority was given on the basis it would expire at the 2025 AGM. But there’s the thing, we haven’t had one. So do the 2024 authorities continue or have they lapsed?

I’ve run the same scenario through different LLM’s. Most say that the company was legally required to hold an AGM by 31/10/25 and that authorities have lapsed because it didn’t; Directors cannot benefit from their own continuing breach. Only one gave the opposite view, taking the strict view that authorities continue because there hasn’t been a 2025 AGM.

So even if the price did rise, I think there’s a real question about whether or not the company has any current authority to raise by issuing stock and, if they tried, it would be risky for the Directors.

It’s notable I think that despite the plethora of placings done here over the years, not one has been done between 31/10 (when AGMs should be held by), and the actual refresh of authorities done when the AGM is actually held.

But beyond everything else, why on earth have we not had a 2025 AGM as required by law?

Hi Pompal - can’t really disagree with that. We’re saying the same thing really in that there’s been plenty of statements suggesting commercial traction but little evidence to back them up.

The basic position as I see it is that GDM is struggling, CIQ has swallowed cost but not yet shown results, current focus is on selling CIQ services to generate those results, and Yentra remains in the construction phase.

CIQ sales need to come through in pretty short order because the rest of the business isn’t making money.

I asked David about the contradiction on Twitter. This was his reply

“Hi, it was paid into 0M and then reduced our costs accordingly. We do not own 0M so not consolidated into accounts. After raise we have onboarded a very good commercial lead and another very experienced commercial member joining mid Jan, so sales is the focus.

The future of advertising is agentic (e.g adcp) and algorithmic, and we find ourselves in a position to be very involved in this future.

In video, first person data is interesting but context is critical - which is why so many ads these days seem misplaced and annoying.”

On the face of it I agree these results aren’t great. Not great at all.

But the reality is that the core GDM revenue, driven by impressions, was bound to fall given the LLM boom. Halley recognised that early and has not only kept that part of the business afloat through significant cost reduction but also repositioned the company, at cost, to benefit from the different ways people are interacting with the web. So these results represent a whole new business model transition period.

We should also remember that Halley isn’t being paid and has even provided the company with a personal letter of comfort. Sure, he’s in the money on his stock (but not that significantly given the current SP), but the reality is he has more skin in this game than us lot.

The issue for me is that we just aren’t seeing any evidence of real commercial traction for CIQ. Sure, it looks to be a quality offering and is partnered/integrated with significant players, but where are the contracts? Yentra is still too early to expect that I think.

But what I relay don’t like is this; the accounts make clear that CIQ made no revenue to the end of June, but in May we had an RNS which said “ Whilst prior to the Licence CIQ was still at an early stage with limited sales track record, first revenue was received in April from campaigns”. Trust in what we get told is crucial and contradictions like this significantly erode it, at least for me.

I won’t be selling. I still believe in the company transition but I do want to see more concrete news of traction.

Well results should be out soon, hopefully with some kind of statement about current trading. At least that will, or should, give us a better understanding about what’s going on.

Sorry Gubbie, I missed your previous.

I see FOFH has appointed a new and interesting Board Director, Jesse Ehrenfeld.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is the 178th President of the American Medical Association (2023–2024), Director of a $560M statewide health philanthropy, Senior Associate Dean and Executive Director at the Medical College of Wisconsin, and a practicing anesthesiologist with nationally recognized expertise in clinical informatics, health policy, and healthcare innovation.“

Seems pretty heavyweight to me. If I recall (no time to check), ABDX were signposting FCA approval for FOFH tests in calendar Q1 2026. Might be wrong!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ehrenfeld

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/doctorjesse_healthcareinnovation-publichealth-diagnostics-activity-7404901546985066496-KAOj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAEuI5eIBooawepY_Ubn_CKcFOzTXAaBN1HA

Agreed.

From what I can garner, the Courts will want some kind of satisfaction that Vast Baita can become a viable operating business, generating cash flow sufficient to meet creditor payment obligations. That’s what the technical team have been tasked to do.

Agree Disco - it’s a cesspit over there!

Just in the spirit of discussion, unlike Vast Baita which will be submitting a reorganisation plan for Court approval next year, Sinarom already has an approved plan in place and must comply with its creditor payment obligations therein or face the prospect of bankruptcy. Manaila isn’t operating so unless I’m mistaken the only funds Sinarom has come from Vast Plc. But Vast Plc has limited cash, ostensibly earmarked for other things like paying its own creditors, and currently can’t raise cash in the markets. So unless Vast can arrange other financing (or get significant diamond proceeds) it seems unlikely to me that Sinarom will be able to carry on in compliance with its plan. If it went bankrupt then our loans to it (about $13m I think) get wiped from our BS. Noting as well that we still don’t know if it’s licence, which expired end of October, has been successfully renewed.

Even if we can muddle through this, the situation is only going to get worse for Vast Plc I think if and when the Vast Baita plan is approved, because it will then have to start funding payments under that plan unless Vast Baita Plai becomes operational again and can fund things itself (which seems unlikely at the moment).

And if a way out of all this is project level investment at both Manaila and BP, then we as Vast shareholders would, I think, likely see our interest in those operations heavily diluted.

Just my views and may be entirely wrong. Interested in others thoughts.

If I were AP I’m not sure I would have posted the video he has today. Technical glitches, barely anyone attending, and panel members with little presentation skills. Not quite the advert he might have hoped for.

The only thing I noted from him came very near the start when I think I heard him say how Vast is working with local and US partners. Maybe wrong, can’t bear to watch it again to check.

Interesting….

I thought carats were just a function of weight, with a fixed conversion; 1 carat = 0.2 grams or, if you prefer, 1 gram = 5 carats. So if you want to know how many carats are in a parcel, all you have to do is weigh it and apply the conversion. That being the case then whether the stones were logged in bulk rather than sorted by quality seems utterly irrelevant to me - re-classification, sorting, or identifying “more gem-grade stones” can never increase total carat weight.

The extra 6,055.35 carats we “found” weighs about 1.2kg.

So, on the reasonable assumptions that the full parcel was properly weighed, using properly functioning scales, before going into the bank, why does that SAME SEALED PARCEL weigh 1.2kg more when it left the bank? Have the diamonds mated and bred little diamonds over that time 🤔?

As I say, it’s all likely irrelevant but strange. Happy to be corrected!

As an aside, I did note that the bloke brought in to weigh and value the diamonds in 2010 was sued a few years later by Gucci Grace for failing to deliver her a diamond ring she’d paid him for!

Just going to throw something else out there that I find really really odd.

If I were a bank accepting safe custody of a valuable parcel of diamonds, I’d want to be damn sure about the carat weight of those diamonds. Indeed, this seems to have happened, as can be seen from this (about 2/3 of the way down) - https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/old/apr7_2010.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com. It says;

“ In a separate meeting with officials of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (Reserve Bank), two representatives of the bank, Messrs. Manase and Chirembab explained that as part of the court order, the Reserve Bank was requested to provide custody for the diamonds in question during the dispute period. The bank received all the diamonds referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the High court order in judgment no. HC 6411/07 for safekeeping pending determination of the appeal noted against the judgment. In fulfilling this request, the Reserve Bank established a monitoring committee comprising representatives of the following institutions”

A list of all notable parties, including African Consolidated Resources, is then given. The piece continues;

“ The Reserve Bank further appointed Mr. Jamal Joseph Ahmed, a diamond valuator from Premier Diamonds, a company registered in Belgium with offices in Antwerp. Premier Diamonds was assigned to confirm the weight and value of the diamonds. members of the monitoring committee were invited to witness the valuation and sealing of the diamonds. The diamonds were placed in a trunk and one key was kept by the deputy sheriff and another by African Consolidated Resources legal representatives. The deputy sheriff also issued

a receipt presented to African Consolidated Resources.”

So, after all these verification procedures and sealing of the parcel, how on earth did we magically find an “additional parcel” of “ 6,055.35 carats of gem quality stones”?

Not sure it matters much so not inviting comment, but to me it is very very strange indeed!!!

I do get you Disco. But that kind of begs the question - why have we always been told when debts have been paid down before? Why was it newsworthy then, but not now?

If anything I’d say it’s more newsworthy now given that, for years, we’ve been repeatedly told that’s what the diamond proceeds would be used for.

We can’t raise at current SP, and even if it rises I’m not at all sure authorities given at the 2024 AGM remain valid.

“We have enough money to extend the loan deadline for another month” - possibly, if it’s not gone into the ops abyss. Worrying if it has I think. Why can’t Vast just confirm it’s used the $1.09m to pay down debt?

On the news front I suppose we might get;

Notice of AGM (to refresh authorities and possibly propose a consolidation). We should definitely have had this already - the fact we haven’t is concerning.

More diamond sales - possible but unlikely imo (at least before the new year)

Refinancing news

Project level investment news

Taj news

As it is, the company can’t currently raise more money in the markets. If it uses the $1.09m to extend then it’s left with whatever’s left over from the £1m it retained after the Oct raise. Not much I would think - what happens when that runs out? If it doesn’t, it sends a terrible message to creditors at the same time as we’d be looking to their good graces to extend further. They might, of course, if they better understand the value and timing of what remains to be sold.

“I would personally class repaying a bit of debt the same as proceeds receipt - just another transaction.”

Have to respectfully disagree on that Disco. Vast has repeatedly said, over a prolonged period, that diamond proceeds would be used to pay down debt. On every other occasion debt has been repaid, we’ve been told. I suppose technically they might not have to tell us, but this important messaging and history says to me, at least, that they should.

Without that simple confirmation, one perfectly reasonable conclusion might be that we haven’t paid down the debt. As a shareholder, that worries me.