Member Info for shareaction

We are told 72% COS for gas and 24% COS for the oil below in the same well.

Any statisticians here - what is the overall statistical COS of hitting at least one of these targets?

cf, the case you referred to -

"Litigation funder Litigation Capital Management
will snap up 30 percent of a confidential
settlement amount that KPMG has fought to
keep under wraps"

- looks to me to be the same case having the same features, in other words (unfortunately) there is only one class action namely the one described in the RNS 20th March.

cf, could it be this case?

https://www.piperalderman.com.au/class-actions/current-class-actions/discovery-metals-class

The settlement figure is confidential but costs seem to have run into more than a million A$.

https://www.piperalderman.com.au/__files/d/31565/DML%20Notice%20of%20proposed%20settlement.pdf

Clause 28:
If the Court makes the Common Fund Order, LCM will be entitled to a commission of 30% of the Settlement Sum.

What are the legal and funding costs?
25. Mr Tredrea and Mr Smith’s legal costs in the DML Class Action have been met by LCM. LCM has also provided an indemnity against the award of costs in the event the case is unsuccessful. The DML Class Action would not have proceeded without this support from LCM.
26. Some group members have executed a funding agreement with LCM (Funded Group Members). Under the funding agreement, LCM is entitled to be reimbursed for the costs that it has funded to date and future costs in having the Proposed Settlement approved, plus a commission from the amount recovered by each Funded Group Member (which shall be paid from the Settlement Sum). The purpose of this commission is to compensate LCM for the investment it has made, and the risk it has taken.
27. The Plaintiff intends to apply to the Court for orders which would have the effect that the above funding arrangements will apply to all Settlement Group Members. This kind of order is known as a “Common Fund Order”.
28. If the Court makes the Common Fund Order, LCM will be entitled to a commission of 30% of the Settlement Sum. This will mean that if the proposed settlement is approved, the total amount available for distribution to Settlement Group Members will be in excess of 50% of the Settlement Sum.
29. Whatever orders the Court makes (if any), Settlement Group Members will not be required to pay any money to LCM or Piper Alderman, otherwise than as a deduction from their entitlements under the Proposed Settlement (and under no circumstances will such payment exceed those entitlements).

Nicholas Greenwood is in effect second largest, or joint second largest with Armstrong Investments Limited, both at 4.3%, as Perfectus Management ltd (10.37%) is a company 98% owned by Polo Resources itself (!!), which gives Tang its voting power. Tang's combined voting power in Polo is therefore around 22%.

Since Celamin now has a legally valid claim against TMS (Tunisian Mining Services) of US$4mill, TMS cannot lawfully sell or dispose of any of its assets before paying its debt to creditors first. And their remaining 49% share of Chaketma Phosphate Project is certainly one such asset which Celamin will go after.

However, TSM having been exposed by courts "worldwide" to have stolen Celamin's 51% share, clearly were – and still are - desperate. Probably with no other assets than this 49% share, they tried to pull a fast one and failed. Characters like these ones don't hang about so I wouldn't be surprised if they have mortgaged its 49% share to third party cronies in the period after the theft to attempt to protect it from creditors (hence the "Celamin is also pursuing civil and criminal claims in Tunisia against individuals and organisations")

Apart from Celamin's 51% share, the rest of their claim ($4m) would as far as I know be as an unsecured creditor so if TMS has other unsecured creditors Celamin would have to share all assets value with them. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if TSM directors have spent these years constructing all sorts of debts and liabilities to cronies designed to compete with Celamin's claim. However, I assume the ongoing criminal proceeding in Tunisia are related to such activities.

I've sold my Polo shares. Also, Polo's interest in Celamin is only 18.4% (which is only around £1m or 0.3 pence (!!) per POLO-share), so almost totally negligible, so why my interest here? Well, I just seen that I could purchase Celamin shares DIRECTLY through the ii-platform, which I already use, and that would give direct exposure to Celamin. And equally important, I would not have to even go near Tang's infested casino fiefdom, Polo Resources! Whether I will invest in Celamin or not I haven't decided as mining projects are difficult enough even without such legal mess as Celamin's.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/polo-resources-ltd--pol-/rns/celamin-holdings-ltd---investment-update/201904100735567319V/

I'm out. Finally. Taken a few years but had enough. My last ¼ mill shares were just sold now for 4.25p but published as 130776 shares sold as "algo" trade at 4.26p. Even the trading system isn't telling the truth about Polo.

Anyway, good luck to the rest of you holders. Honestly I hope it rallies so you get a better price if/when you sell!

A (not so) little update:

In their quarter report released this week, Pan Asia is telling us that TCM, the coal mine project (that they are trying to sell) has dropped in price due to their inability to procure logging and other licenses in Indonesia to make mining possible, so it is now clear that there simply isn't enough cash there to repay Polo's original loan to Universal Coal, not to mention the outstanding sum inclusive of interest.

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02091857

In Pan Asia's annual report, also released this week, they simply say:

"In June 2015, the Company entered into a conditional agreement with Universal Coal Resources Pte Ltd (“Universal”) under which they were to undertake to list the TCM project on the Singapore Stock Exchange. In return, Pan Asia was to receive SGD 30M in shares in the listed company.

In May 2016, the Company entered into a highly conditional share sale and purchase agreement with Universal. Additionally, to assist Universal raise funds for the project’s proposed listing by way of a Convertible Note Financing from Polo Investments Pte Ltd (“Polo”), Pan Asia provided the TCM asset as an additional security for Polo Investments Ltd, in the event that the convertible note was not repaid by Universal. The principal of Universal provided personal guarantees to both Polo and Pan Asia to cover in the event Universal failed and could not repay the loan from Polo.

While Pan Asia has endeavoured to be accommodating to Universal, the Company believes the conditions in that agreement were not met resulting in the Company and the TCM Project’s ongoing survival being placed in jeopardy. The Company then had no choice but to seek an alternative and certain way forward with the TCM Project.

The Company plans to FURTHER ENGAGE WITH POLO TO SEEK A COMMERCIAL RESTRUCTURING OF THIS SECURITY IN THE EVENT THE CURRENT POTENTIAL SALE OF THE TCM PROJECT DOES PROCEED to a point where a sale of Pan Asia’s interest to Glory Merry is to occur.

In the event Polo serves a notice of enforcement of its security provided by Pan Asia, the Company has six months to finalise the sale of the project, repay Polo for Universal’s debt and seek redress from Universal and its guarantor."

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02091853

I.e. Pan Asia now admits that there isn't enough money to repay Polo so they want to negotiate a debt restructure instead.

Did Tang mention these things in Polo's annual report as the lender here with £4.4 mill at stake?

Yes i'm having enough of this Polo saga so therefore reducing even further.

Exactly at the same time as the 200,000 BUY trade for 4.3p at 15:23:26 was recorded my limit SELL of ¼ mill shares was executed at 4.32p. Was this partly my trade or a pure coincidence?

20 Sep last year:
"Merlon produced 7,859 bopd (net) in 2017"

Today's RNS:
"Production from the El Fayum concession during Q1 2019 averaged 5,692 barrels of oil per day"

Was this 30% production drop known to the market before now?

Around 60 mill shares will be for sale after this takeover completion with no lockup period.

I hope Peel Hunt is right but I see their condition for their re-rating belief is a successful implementation of extensive drilling programme (and not before) and that will take over a year to get started properly.

If that is the case, please send out an RNS whenever you trade. In the name of fairness he the whole market should have equal information! hehe...

.../continuation

"While Pan Asia has endeavored to be accommodating to Universal,
the Company believes the conditions in that agreement were not
met resulting in the Company and the TCM Project’s ongoing
survival being placed in jeopardy. The Company then had no choice
but to seek an alternative and certain way forward with the TCM
Project.

The Company plans to further engage with Polo to seek a commercial
restructuring of this security in the event the current potential sale
of the TCM Project does proceed to a point where a sale of Pan Asia’s
interest to Glory Merry is to occur.

In the event Polo serves a notice of enforcement of its security
provided by Pan Asia, the Company has six months to sell the project,
repay Polo for Universal’s debt and seek redress from Universal and
its guarantor."

In other words Pan Asia recognises that Polo has a legal charge on the Pan Asia subsidiary company that owns the coal mine. However, reading Pan Asia's half year report to 31DEC2017 I noticed that there is also another company involved in loans to this coal mine which is causing grave concern for Pan Asia:

"GOING CONCERN
In the half year ended 31 December 2017, the Company recorded
a net loss of $1,264,454 and a net operating cash outflow of
$64,653. The Company has a working capital deficiency of
$5,057,838 as at 31 December 2017, due principally to the current
nature of the amount owing to Kopex Mining of USD$2,767,500
(comprising loans of USD$2,530,000 and other payables of
USD$237,500) for the feasibility study and drilling activities
relating to the TCM project (“Kopex Loan”). The Company has
entered into a guarantee and indemnity to guarantee the
performance of TCM to repay the loan. At the date of this report,
the Kopex Loan remains outstanding. The Group has a net asset
deficiency of $5,044,847 at 31 December 2017."

And another one apparently:

"ASX ANNOUNCEMENT
NEW EMERALD COAL PTY LIMITED PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP
Pan Asia Corporation Ltd (“PZC” or the “Company”) has previously
announced that it had entered into a binding but conditional term
sheet to acquire New Emerald Coal Pty Limited (“NEC”), subject to
shareholder approval. Pan Asia has made available a secured loan
of $1,059,070 bearing an interest rate of 12% to further this transaction."

With Pan Asia Corporation being so open on this development, why doesn't Tang do the same? Is it simply too complicated for him to understand?

If Tang was in control of this situation, I am sure he would have written about it, and even released an RNS and explained how wonderful it all is.

Sadly, however I have no choice but to interpret his outdated information and silence as a confirmation that the loan plus accrued interest (around £4.4 mill – or 1.4 pence per POLO share) is LOST.

Nothing would please me more than if someone could demonstrate that this is not the case.

US$3.8m loan to Universal Coal Resources

Tang continues to blatantly give the market what I regard as FAKE NEWS of the real situation with the SGD 5,000,000 (~USD 3.8m) 15% loan Polo gave to Universal Coal Resources in May 2016 to enable a Singapore listing of an Indonesian coal mine. (The 15% p.a. interest alone accrued (and unpaid of course) to date has now reached ~USD 2mill.

Tang only copies and pastes the same old text he has used for several years in the annual and half year reports year after year even though Pan Asia Corporation Ltd (ASX: PZC) [the most important party to this complex situation] reports REAL events which are completely different.

On Thursday 8 November 2018 Pan Asia Corporation issued a stock exchange news release titled:

"Pan Asia Corporation Agrees to Divest its Indonesian Thermal Coal Assets for US$4.6 million (A$6.4 million). Initial Payment of US$2.0 million (A$2.8 million) received." :

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02045856

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=PZC&timeframe=D&period=M6

"The [Sale Purchase Agreement] is binding on all parties, and is only conditional on Pan Asia shareholders voting in favour of the divestment by 29 January 2019"

When Universal Coal Resources Pte Ltd failed to list any company in Singapore they should have repaid Polo the loan as quickly as possible. After all it would cost them around ~£9,000 per WEEK in interest charges (15% p.a.) to continue to borrow this money. Since they have not paid back anything I think we can safely assume the money has been spent elsewhere and that is therefore is gone. The total (unpaid)l interest alone to date has now reached ~£1.5 mill (or 0.5p per POLO share)

Pan Asia Corporation has in earlier quarterly stock exchange news releases said the following:

" UNIVERSAL AND POLO

In June 2015, the Company entered into a conditional agreement
with Universal Coal Resources Pte Ltd (“Universal”) under which
they were to undertake to list the TCM Project on the Singapore
Stock Exchange. In return, Pan Asia was to receive SGD 30M in
shares in the listed company.

In May 2016, the Company entered into a highly conditional share
sale and purchase agreement with Universal. Additionally, to
assist Universal raise funds for the project’s proposed listing by
way of a Convertible Note Financing from Polo Investments Pte
Ltd (“Polo”), Pan Asia provided the TCM asset as an additional
security for Polo Investments Ltd, in the event that the convertible
note was not repaid by Universal. The principle of Universal
provided personal guarantees to both Polo and Pan Asia to cover
in the event Universal failed and could not repay the loan from Polo."

... continued/

I'm sure they can see the great potential here and don't want those 12.62% do be too diluted. Marketcap is only £106m whereas Burford Capital is £3.55 BILLION, 33 times larger! Great potential for those of us that missed the Burford departure, we'll catch the LIT non-stop Express instead!

End user spend may well double this year compared with last year but will the actual revenue to Bango from this EUS also double? I seem to remember an issue that the percentage fee to Bango and the other players from EUS was falling - due to stiffer competition in this area. If that is the case, Bango's EUS guiding is misleading.

"..Expansion of the business to providing data insights for app developer marketing, all provide a powerful platform for a profitable 2019 and prosperous long-term future."

Bango seems to be very bullish here but have we seen any financial details and results yet from this new "powerful" Bango Marketplace? Will it be as profitable and prosperous as we read?

"The Company announces that on 7 March 2019, its Persons Discharging Managerial Responsibilities ("PDMRs") were granted the following nil-cost share awards over ordinary shares of £0.05 each in the Company ("Shares") under the Company's Long Term Incentive Plan ("LTIP")"

A disgrace as far as I can see. For the CEO to receive 2,040,087 options to "buy" (haha - receive) SOCO shares FOR FREE, is a NOT an incentive to perform well... These options are already £1.4m 'in the money', so there is plenty of profit there already without performing any better than today. Even if the shareprice drops further by 50% from today's price he'll still get shares worth £700k!

The purchase price for incentive options should be always at least 25% above grant date's share price. The carrots must be hanging on a stick in front of the donkey, not thrown to it on the ground.

An interesting few paragraphs from article in IC 17Jan2019:

Like Burford, Litigation Capital Management funds legal claims by individuals and companies, recovering the amount invested plus a share of the financial rewards in the case of a positive outcome. But its history stretches back further. After being founded in Australia in 1998 to finance insolvency claims, chief executive Patrick Moloney hopes to use the group’s experience underwriting claims in the Southern hemisphere to expand into the rapidly growing UK and US markets.

"[Litigation finance] has gone very quickly from being a dark art that lawyers didn’t talk about to being one of the tools of arbitration," says Nick Rowles-Davies, executive director of Litigation Capital Management’s recently formed UK business and former Burford managing director outside the Americas.

However, Manolete – WHICH DEALS ONLY WITH INSOLVENCY CASES (my emphasis) – buys cases from insolvency practitioners, becoming the claimant. That helps the group avoid going to court, says chief executive Steven Cooklin. "If you’re funding someone else, the decision to settle is that party’s decision," he says. HMRC accounts for a large chunk of cases the group takes on. "The ability of these organisations to run those complex cases is very stretched," Mr Cooklin says.

Indeed, litigation financiers argue there is a greater chance of avoiding court, with the opposition encouraged to settle by the presence of patient capital backing a claim. Both Manolete and Litigation Capital Management are committing capital to new cases at an impressive rate, with investments by the former up by three-quarters during the first half of the financial year and the amount of capital deployed at Litigation Capital Management more than doubling last year.

"The interesting thing is, because they’re smaller, some of these companies are below the radars of a lot of other institutions," said one major shareholder in Manolete and Litigation Capital Management. "The growth opportunities are so much greater when you’re small."

I agree but why couldn't DGOC just have stepped into the existing well retirement agreements of the gas fields they have bought instead of negotiating completely deals which the market then treats as BAD NEWS?

The admission document to AIM is actually quite good and explains in detail the background and commercial rationale behind their business model:

https://investors.manolete-partners.com/investor-information/ipo-information?

Most of us missed the Burford Capital express train so perhaps Manolete is the next train departure?

bakky - yes, a Malaysian lawyer told me that a Datuk title in effect can be bought. And if such a person also is in the in the tittle Tatler list then that combination is a massive dont-even-consider-it red flag as far as investing is concerned.