Member Info for OofyProsser

Muck165: according to Transparency International’s international index of corruption, Zimbabwe is at no. 157 out of 180 nations - 180:being the most corrupt. The index measures largely public sector corruption. If this packet of diamonds is still where it’s supposed to be and ready to be handed over to Vast in the near or distant future, I should imagine Zimbabwe will enjoy a startling rise up the list. Surely a huge placing here is inevitable and imminent?

It seems to me that the question shareholders here should be asking themselves is what will happen to the share price if Vast have a massive share issue next week to repay part of their outstanding debts. And what price will its lenders attach to any further debt extension. Reliance on the receipt by 30 June of a packet of diamonds held in an Harare bank vault for 10+ years looks a bit optimistic, surely?

SandyShore459: yes, you’re probably right, all these people are doing is finding a post facto rationalisation for the share price movement. This still leaves the question, why are people buying? There do seem to be such things from time to time as ramps, and pumps and dumps. There’s also the chance that it’s a coincidental gut feeling among enough investors that it’s gone down far enough to encourage them to buy. Some of these people then devise theories as to why this gut feeling is to be relied on.

The fact remains, there’s nothing in the public domain to explain the price recovery today. “More buyers than sellers” is trite and not good enough. The end of the month is now 16 days away, after which Vast will either stick or twist. They need this bag of diamonds to be present (and real diamonds), and available as loan collateral. It’s stretching credulity in my opinion but hey, this is AIM.

Am I missing something here? All that’s happened today seems to be that a number of people have re-posted old or very old news and the price has recovered somewhat in response. Meanwhile Vast have to re-pay large borrowings at the end of the month for which they do not have the money. They do have a court judgment in their favour entitling them to take delivery of a bag of diamonds which is allegedly to be found in an Harare bank vault, where it has resided since long before President Mugabe’s ouster.

It’s possible Vast’s lenders will continue to support the company after the end of the month but if they do, shareholders may expect their terms to be eye-watering.

Irishmouse: yes. When Companies House says “in ten days”, it often means they’ll be available imminently, so it's worth watching their site.

Irishmouse: when he got involved with AAOG, Mr. Forrest’s SEL owned 49% of the Saltfleetby gas field. A few months after his appointment as a Director here, he negotiated terms for the sale of SEL to Angus on very generous terms. He’s been busily selling the hundreds of millions of shares he acquired ever since. Whether he’ll retain his Angus Non-Executive Directorship once he’s sold them all is a moot point. If he plans fully to exit Angus, it’s hard to see what AAOG has to offer him. He’ll be a rich man, either way. I’d be surprised if he allows this

AAOG to be struck off while he’s a Director, though, with the reputational damage that would follow and in view of the small outlay that would be involved. I’m not sure how the host of small investors here will benefit, either way. AAOG’s only attraction, as far as I can see, are the tax losses but where are the companies with sufficient qualifying profits against which these losses could be offset? I’m no accountant though, I don’t follow all of the oil and gas companies and anything can happen in AIM companies.

Apologies for earlier fat finger.

Irishmouse: when he got involved with AAOG, his SEL owned 49% of Saltfleetby gas field. A few months after his appointment as a Director here, he negotiated terms for the sale of SEL to Angus on very generous terms. He’s been busily selling the hundreds of millions of shares he acquired ever since. Whether he’ll retain his Non-Executive Directorship once he’s sold thevall is a moot point. If he plans to exit Angus, it’s hard to see what AAOG h

Irishmouse: As I understand it, this has been a cash shell for nearly three years, when its most recent report and accounts were published, and its AIM-quoted status has been suspended for the past two years. Mr. Forrest’s company, Forum Energy Services, withdrew its financial support at the time it became a cash shell, but Mr. Forrest became a Director in February 2022, giving rise to hopes he had a use for AAOG’s tax losses.

There must have been a reason for Mr. Forrest’s interest in AAOG and the possible consequences of his allowing the company to be struck off will be unpalatable to him, I should think. So I’d be a little surprised if some action is not taken on the filing of accounts soon. He may have been busy with his new responsibilities at Angus Energy and in finding appropriate uses for the large amounts of cash he is amassing as a result of the sweet deal that his company SEL concluded with Angus last year. Whether he and his fellow Director are still interested in keeping AAOG going or would prefer to finance its winding up is unknown but they’ll have to decide and act accordingly within two months or it looks as if the decision will be taken for them, leaving the Directors with reputational issues and potential financial liabilities. If he bought into AAOG in the first place against the possibility of using its tax losses, Mr. Forrest will at last have to bite the bullet on this. I doubt that Angus Energy will feature in AAOG’s future. Who knows, though, this is AIM?

Sorry about that, my fat fingers. I realised the mistake re the date of the Companies House filing just after I posted that reply yesterday. I didn’t think it worth correcting, as I didn’t intend to contribute here again for now. It looks like another AIM company Wonga loan, simple as that. It’s repayable in mid-May and Vast are trying to find ways of reducing the debt to Mercuria as well. I’ve had a very brief look at the latest Mercuria Charge and it refers to a number of missed repayments of earlier loans going back years, which have been consolidated and the terms thereby been made more onerous to Vast. It’s way out of my comfort zone. I do wish you luck, again, with it and thanks for taking the time to reply to my posts, you are infinitely more knowledgeable about this than I am.

SAndyShore459: yes, I realised my mi

Thanks, SandyShore459. I stand corrected.

I’ve looked at the 22 May 2022 RNS and it’s possibly the most complex of its kind that I’ve seen to date. It’s basically a take it or leave it message to the shareholders but we’re bust without it. There’s no Charge on the Alpha loan, I don’t suppose Mercuria would have allowed it. They're pretty shrewd, the people at Mercuria.

I enjoyed our conversation over loans on which it turned out not only that the Charges were discharged, but that the loans were repaid in the first half of last year, but am sorry to have contributed to the waste of so much time by you and one or two others. The discussion has been a cut or three above the standard on most AIM company sites.

For me, I think a lot depends in Vast on the delivery to them of the packet of diamonds. I’ll be surprised if they’re found. For that reason, I’m not in it at the moment. I’m also not keen on the complexity of the Board’s communications to its shareholders - the owners of the business. So I’ll butt out and wish you success with your investment here and thanks for a stimulating discussion.

SandyShore459: I’ve had another look today at the 3 Charges in favour of Atlas Special Opportunities llc. They were satisfied in February this year, so they no longer apply and my posts yesterday are irrelevant. I don’t know for sure whether the page on the Companies House was updated on 13th February and I missed the fact or whether it’s been updated late. They’re normally pretty good at updating their sites, in my experience.

So it’s just the Mercuria Charges now, which are between Vast Resources and Mercuria and will be subject to UK law.

Legalease: yes, I agree. It’s all there in the Charge document.

SandyShore459: well, I’ve enjoyed debating the issue with you. The fact remains that this is a loan governed by Romanian law and secured on the assets of Vast’s Romanian operating subsidiary. If Vast should fail to meet its terms, its creditors are entitled to take control of the Romanian company. I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interests for this to happen, so the discussion may prove largely academic.

Well done re the reference.

Well, it’s all there in the Charge. The Charge covers all the assets of African Consolidated Resources SLR, the Romanian subsidiary, not the assets of Vast in the UK (if any). It’s hard to see what involvement the UK courts could have in any dispute between the parties. A valid, signed power of attorney and evidence of a breach of covenants on the mortgage will be all the Company’s bankers need to allow the beneficiaries of the Charge to take control of the assets. If you’ve agreed a mortgage on your house with a bank and missed payments on it, the bank doesn’t have to go to court to get your house, does it? It gives you notice of when to vacate. At least with a house in the UK there’s likely to be some residual value remaining when the house is sold. If you were to go to a solicitor to seek advice on a possible appeal, he or she would advise you that you hadn’t a leg on which to stand.

SandyShore459: the Atlas loan Charge includes a form of proxy, signed by Vast, giving power of attorney to the lender in an Event of Default. That doesn’t require any intervention by a Court. The power of attorney appears to make the Lender the manager of the Company's assets, enabling it to do what it needs to do to safeguard its financial interest. The document is in English but is a Romanian document under Romanian law, the English courts won’t have jurisdiction. The only mention of the Courts is in respect of force majeure. I shouldn’t think that running out of money constitutes force majeure. What am I missing?

Mickey1122: apologies for the rather sarcastic tone of my earlier reply. Not intended to offend. It just seems to me to be standard AIM management strategy and I’m sceptical about the diamonds.

SandyShore459: what Court and what judge? The Charges give both lenders the right to secure their interest in the company’s assets if there’s an Event of Default. There’s no need for them to go to court, according to the Charge documents. They or their agent would merely tell the company’s bank not to take instruction from the Company. In any case, the court would be a Romanian one. Mercuria do seem to prefer to avoid a situation like this, though, so a renegotiation, with much less favourable terms as far as Vast is concerned, may be a more likely outcome. Who knows though? I certainly don’t, so will bow out of this discussion now.

asimpleinvestor: I’ve had a brief look at the Charges and they all appear to be governed by the Romanian Civil Code, about which I know nothing at all. Mercuria must have some confidence in it, I suppose. But it seems this may invalidate many of my comments earlier, for which I apologise. Signing off..

asimpleinvestor: my understanding (you may well be better informed, so do correct me if I’m incorrect) is that the High Court etc. is only involved in the event of an application for a winding-up. Not in the event of the appointment of an administrator or a receiver. Administration can go on for a year or more, during which the practitioner is well paid, from the Company’s remaining assets. During this period, the shares are in limbo. It’s unlikely there would be any value left to the shares in the event that a winding-up order were sought and a court ruling in Zimbabwe concerning diamonds of which no one appears to have had sight for years is unlikely to provide a pretext for delaying the implementation of a UK court order, in my opinion. Again, you may be more expert that I so please correct me if the above is wrong.

SandyShore459: I should have added that it’s clearly in the interests of the Lenders to Vast that the Company succeeds. Enforcing their Charge would be very much a last resort for Mercuria. It seems likely some kind of resolution will be found, in everyone’s interests, probably involving further heavy dilution, though.

All the above is my opinion only and, while offered in good faith, absolutely not to be relied upon.