Member Info for sandgrounded

Lees, thank you for the reply.

I agree with the options you present.

The BOD seemed confident about their chances, but out of 30 companies having applied to date, I think it’s possibly only three who have so far been successful.

We await further news. Thanks again.

If you don’t want to discuss a subject, then stay quiet.

We are not here to change governments minds but to discuss the implications for our companies.

So you think it is good business practice to say to firms, put in place a system to inform your clients you are no longer allowed to operate and to arrange for those clients to sell/ move their assets, yet not give those firms any meaningful notice?

The Lithuanian government are making themselves look incompetent and foolish over the issuance of MICA licences.

They want to look and act tough in enforcing the 31st of December deadline and threatening fines for non compliant firms, but have yet to give a decision to those applying one way or the other.

Even if they reject these applications now, firms have literally two and a half days to inform clients to close their accounts with them. What kind of process is that?

They are going to have to give a period of grace to the 30 who have applied!

I await some news before the New Year. Good or bad!

Keeping my eyes open for any trading signals.

The rest is our money and shares back.

I wonder if the Singapore dollars equating to US$300,000 is the compensation? The test is our money and shares back.

Chaebol, thanks for your earlier reply, which I had missed, until now.

If we have got the treasury shares back and are receiving a million dollars back, could it be that we are backing out of the original deal? The cash and shares are similar to what we paid out for Semnet. If so where would that leave us?

Is it possible the arbitration panel asked that the shares be suspended/ not sold/ held in treasury until the case was decided? As such the company may not have been able to rns it until a final decision is made.

How come every other company can report sales/installations, but Cyan doesn’t. It can’t be a confidentiality clause, otherwise no one else would report anything.

Just seems bizarre that the BOD keep us in the dark!

Are organised shorters using the last four numbers on sells as a code? 8587 ?. Watch out for them as they used a similar method on EEE using a slightly different number!

There’s always that possibility and with the aerial results not yet released, then confidentiality could come into play.

Clutching g at straws though.

Good luck k all holders.

Not sure which assays you are referring to. Rock chip samples were reported in October and since then High-resolution airborne magnetics were completed at the end of October, with results expected within weeks.

It’s about 7 weeks now and results still not published.

In the meantime they have acquired another tenement as a potential gold prospect.

Sennet appears to be sorted. Can then look at Nasdaq listing.

Mica licence appears to be on track.

Business activity increasing compared to last six months of 24/25 financial year.

I just think the BOD are peeved at us for voting down one of the resolutions allowing them to offer more shares without including us shareholders. They are sulking.

I assume BOD is Board of Directors and PPP was a company that some of the directors were involved in.

You pay your money and you take your chance. It’s as simple as that.

However don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose.

If we get a MICA license, could that make us a takeover target for a company who didn’t win one.?

Great news ML.