Member Info for oldspursfan

Well today has been a bit disappointing hasn't it. Even more so given that "expected early June" is the only thing the BoD has mentioned, and nothing since about any risks to meeting the most basic, fundamental requirements of listing.

Until they miss it.

If they don't pull a rabbit out of the hat on Monday:

> for those who saw petroneft today, any suspension to sort this out gives the BoD a 6 month window before shares are cancelled (HNY eh?)

> for those who saw AMC who have managed to publish audited accounts today using a Cypriot firm of auditors, it obviously is possible to get this done. Perhaps if you believe Toffers this would be preferable as a Cypriot firm could go and see the piles of currency that the BoD have apparently squirrelled away there...

Whatever happens on Monday, we are well overdue a full explanation of what the F has gone on this last year. The only thing I can see that would be difficult is how to get every member of our ever-expanding BoD to all bask in the reflected glory of this year's achievements - a drag line, a DFS submission and a decision to not sell anything.

Have a good weekend, little point worrying now until 7am Monday. GLA

I didn't realise you could go back 2723 pages (100 posts per page), that's quite recent! Interesting reading the comments from then, including mac!

Gold_Dust

Posts: 1,607

Price: 0.75

No Opinion

RE: RNS22 Dec 2016 13:45

P.s when have they ever met a target??

Same shlt different year, quite an eye opener.

Thanks for the analysis LB!

Good thing is that with 5 working days until the end of the month, there should be no issue with the Group accounts, AR and AGM announcement coming out without breaching AIM Rules.

So that talk can cease, at least until next Saturday...

Perhaps this image, with the caption "Credible party: at the table since 2021"

http://bit.ly/3PrwJP7

It seems that Mac is firmly of the opinion that despite saying "considering options", the BoD meant "considering OFFERS". Whilst I'd like that to be true, if the BoD meant offers, I'm sure they would have said offers. It's too much of a positive gloss for the BoD to ignore.

"Options" to me sounds more fundamental, as in can we monetise any assets, which ones, how can we do this, is anyone prepared to put an offer on the table, or do we ditch the plan altogether and do something else?

Let's see if the wording changes at all in the annual report.

The point about using raised funds for a different purpose is an interesting one. Firstly my scenario means they haven't used it yet, they're just holding it in case they lose, so as to prevent a further raise (post AGM) or debt finance.

Secondly, if it was raised via a public offering then yes I would agree the change of purpose (however temporary) requires notifying. But it wasnt, it was private, with parties undisclosed, and the deramp du jour of late 2021, was they had flipped or forward sold so wouldn't be holding them now.

In that case, is it still a formal obligation, or does it become more a common courtesy to advise that things are on hold?

Let's face it, this BoD have been pss poor at anything falling into the "courtesy" bucket, unless they can put a positive spin on it. So if that particular gripe is in reality just a "nice to have" from the BoD, you're wasting your time.

All my opinion.

Toffers we've had loads of suggestions and accusations thrown around recently, as you well know, some involving the BoD moving assets out the country (Cyprus for instance) so it becomes untouchable.

In fairness you didn't say the auditors have walked, your scenario was actually the auditors won't sign off and the NOMAD will walk, so soz for that!

My position is what it has been for weeks, lets see what is said first and then ask if/when no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. What I'm not doing is jumping the gun.

Precisely Scuba, just another tick in the poor comms/ prioritising silence over anything remotely bad.

And as Rickstars says there will be lots pouring over the accounts when they are published to see what has happened to it.

Just put it forward as an alternative and - who knows - slightly more plausible scenario than the BoD has stolen it and the auditors have walked!

Has anybody considered that our legal reps may have recommended that some of the placing $35m be set aside as a provision against any adverse legal finding?

It a theoretical dot to dot, but may help explain why the cash reported as being available to spend has gone down so much, with little by way of tangible Rosgeo progress (despite being fully funded originally).

Just a guess, but if the placees had indeed forward sold or otherwise flipped their shares they wouldn't give a toss, but it would stave off the allegedly existential threat Toffers keeps banging on about.

Hopefully the accounts will clarify when published, but a possibility to consider nonetheless.

...and if it gets mentioned in the 22 report, on the basis that it is likely to conclude in the next 12 months? You'd look a bit silly.

But thats just my view. I think you're being premature, and still don't understand why you're so eager just a matter of days before we know one way or the other.

Doesn't the "going concern" basis only cover the next 12 months? Why would a dispute initially filed on 7 Dec 21 materially affect the going concern opinion for the calendar year 2022? These legal proceedings take forever, as is evident.

The company has survived 2022 anyway so you can't claim the going concern opinion was wrong.

It amazes me how unwilling you are to wait to see if it gets mentioned in the 22 report, which is due any day now and before the end of June in any case, before *apparently* firing off complaints left, right and centre.

It's almost as if you're afraid these things will be mentioned and your concerns will be addressed, so getting in first before giving them a chance.

Let them say what they have to say, and if they don't cover it, or it's unsatisfactory (which is more than likely) then shout your mouth off.

Or we could always wait a little bit for the annual report and accounts, see what that answers and ask if anything (everything) is left?

Just my view.

Toffers, if what you say is true, we would have been fined last year: annual accounts filed 29th June, AGM 28th July. If we were fined, this would need to be notified.

Also, as this discrepancy between AIM Rule 19 and the Companies Act has been in place for the better part of 20 years now, there would be numerous examples of AIM companies who have filed accounts before the end of month 6 following year end, yet were fined because the AGM wasn't until month 7. Can you name any?

Or indeed, the results of any legal challenge or judicial assessment as the first thing I would do is challenge that something I did, which complied with the Rules of listing, but fell foul of another piece of UK legislation, is an obvious inconsistency.

There must be precedents, so again, do you know of any?

You can quote doomsday scenarios all day, and be or not be a duck, I really don't care. But your arguments would carry more weight if you could quote examples.

We could be fined, like [these companies] were for not holding an AGM before month 6...

No it looks like you're saying that LSE's AIM Rules for Companies is incompatible with the Companies Act.

LSE could be fined!

Except they haven't been...

Yeah I was thinking more this:

"Annual accounts

19. An AIM company must publish annual audited accounts which must be sent to its

shareholders without delay and in any event not later than six months after the end of the

financial year to which they relate."

AIM Rules for Companies - London Stock Exchange

Brookkers, I believe AIM rules only require the accounts to be published and an AGM called within 6 months of the accounting date.

By "called", this means announcing the date, time, location, and resolutions to be voted on, not for the AGM to be actually be held by then.

But you're right, with minimum 3 weeks notice it looks like a July AGM.

Much as I like damp squids, reason for posting on this thread is that it's my understanding AIM rules require the ACCOUNTS to be published within 6 months of the reporting date.

It is not for companies to hold an AGM within 6 months, inclusive of 3 weeks notice.

So for me, it could be any weekday up to Friday 30th for the accounts, annual report and AGM date to be communicated.

For me the BoD need to clarify exactly what the situation is with all our strategies. If it's the case, as suspected, that the current sanctions environment prevent us selling, activating or concluding anything, but we still hold them as options for when sanctions are lifted, then so be it.

It will put the lie to the only other previous statement, that the sanctions don't affect us. It also raises questions about what the expanded BoD members have actually done for the last 12 months plus, and why one was even appointed in a war environment, but at least it will give us some clarity. Right now that would be better than bloody nothing.

GLA

The Agenda will specify who if anybody is up for re-election. I doubt Artem and Kotara are up as the Articles of Association have Non-Execs in post for 9 years before they have to resign and seek reappointment ("shortly...").

It will be interesting to see whether they have chosen to charge any fees for work performed this year, given the context. If it has not been possible to advance any of the strategies they were brought in to work on, then I'd hope not.

Yep but as much as we all want it to be so, there is no guarantee that particular operational achievement is the final piece of the jigsaw, which will trigger a binding offer irrespective of war or sanctions.

We can but hope, but as Fr Jack I think pointed out, the DFS was after the timeframe the BoD thought the deal would take.