Member Info for specinvestor99

In the UK, a UK insider, such as a company director or employee with access to non-public information, cannot post on stock message boards or otherwise disclose material, non-public information. Doing so would constitute insider trading, which is illegal and carries significant penalties.

Elaboration:

UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR):

MAR prohibits the disclosure of inside information except where necessary for the normal exercise of an employment, profession, or duties.

Criminal Liability:

The UK Criminal Justice Act 1993 (CJA) imposes criminal penalties for insider dealing, including up to seven years imprisonment and unlimited fines.

Generally, no, insiders should avoid posting on stock message boards, especially if they have knowledge of material non-public information (MNPI). This is because such posts could be interpreted as improperly communicating inside information, which is a violation of insider trading regulations.

Here's why it's generally discouraged and the potential risks:

Communication of Material Non-Public Information (MNPI):

Insiders are prohibited from sharing MNPI about their company with anyone outside the company, except when necessary for legitimate business purposes. This includes avoiding any communication that could be seen as a tip or recommendation based on inside knowledge.

Potential for Misinterpretation:

Posting on message boards, even seemingly innocuous comments, could be misinterpreted as sharing inside information or making investment recommendations based on MNPI. This can lead to investigations and potential penalties.

Liability for Tipping:

If an insider shares MNPI, even unintentionally, and someone else trades based on that information, the insider could be liable under tipping laws.

Company Policies:

Many companies have strict policies against insiders communicating MNPI, including through social media or message boards. Violating these policies can lead to disciplinary action, including termination.

In summary, it's best for insiders to avoid posting on stock message boards or any other public forum where they might inadvertently share MNPI or be seen as making investment recommendations based on inside knowledge. If an insider is unsure whether a comment is appropriate, they should seek guidance from legal counsel or the company's compliance departme

Helpful LOL sorry but I have dealt with issue for over 30 years as an officer and director of both US and Canadian companies which included in the UK

You are wrong. The lack of enforcement does not make you right.

Example When the posted speed limit is 60 and I drive 75. I am in fact speeding in violation of the law. Even though I can keep doing it and not get a ticket does change the fact that I still violate the law by speeding

turn yourself in

Banbury

This is the basic problem for an outsider reading Helpful's posts

-How do I know when Helpful is positive information if it is based on public or confidential information? Answer I dont.

Helpful's position is trust me- I dont do it

SEC position is -no trading with in x days of possessing insider information

US public companies have black out periods for employees in possession of insider information during which they can not trade or post ANYTHING

Helpfuls's position is "trust me I monitor myself" in essence Helpful assumes the position of the regulator but answerable to no one

Bambury you left out Helpful's ownership of ELEP

Martha Stewart (a well known food chef, designer etc) went to jail in the US for violating insider rules. I should not that she was not an officer, director or owned less than 5% of the company whose insider information she breached,

I can only hope that AIM and the UK pay attention to insider trading violations due to the importance of having trust in the financial integrity of trading in a public company's shares

Helpful You may have read my posts but clearly you did not understand them. Here is a brief recap

1-Insider definition- Agreed that Canada and UK have different definitions.

2-Helpful is an insider under the UK definition- This old ground and being an insider was already confirmed by you so lets not go backward

3-non disclosure of other insider information -It is not relevant if you have disclosed all of the information you have on RRR or any other company. It only takes once to be in violation

4-possible violation by AB or others- Again not relevant

Even in your latest post you acknowledge that you posses inside information. It is my opinion that by posting either positive or negative opinion even if that post does not disclose the actual inside information is by itself a violation

example you know of a positive event and you post with the intent to encourage some one to buy but dont disclose the actual inside information is a violation. I know for a fact this type of activity in Canada and the US would be a violation

If this is not a violation in the UK then it makes the insider restrictions meaningless which very well may be the case

Helpful re "Breaching MAR" as an admitted insider you have certainly posted information on this forum which was not disclosed in an RNS. Then after it was proven to be false did you either ignored or redirect and call it mere opinion

Now you post the "Breaching MAR" in what could be seen as an attempt to post false information because since it not "News" there is no breach of MAR.

As a non UK resident it is disappointing to continue see non action by AIM on this issue of insiders posting on stock forums

Nothing on DRC award

nothing on RRAL for which RRR took on short term payments from POW adding to their monthly cash obligations

no deals done on their gold properties despite numerous comments that parties are interested.

When will something be done?

Yes its a holiday I got the answer from my buddy Google

Is RRR trading today?

or is a May 5th holiday?

Tricky If you believe the AIM rules & regulations are being violated then file a complaint. This is an old old issue. Clearly the AIM does not have a problem with it. If you dont like RRR;s shares then by all means sell your shares (if you own any)

RRR is in compliance. I understand you think the AIM rules should be different and I do too.

I think AIM should require quarterly financials with a Managements discussion and analysis (MDA) with actual commentary on what is happening on a project by project basis which includes lease & other financial obligations. Example Why is RRR still show expenditures on Greenland? is actual cash or an accrual of expenses. All related party transactions should be disclosed (cash and accruals. Insiders should include not only officers & directors, 5% shareholders for the parent company as well as the subsidiaries and affiliated companies, this would the lithium deal. What was Helpful's deal on lithium?

If company discloses a possible future event then they should be required to disclose if that event happen and if not, then why not. This fosters transference and accountability with management to its shareholders

Such as what happened from the Jan 2025 RNS which stated "We are also engaged in various discussions with potential buyers who have approached us in relation to certain of our assets."

Zumore- IMO it is false to say Bell is 'sneaky' regarding loan disclosures. (sneaky as in secret or dishonest). Your issue is with the laws, rules & policies that RRR/AB are obligated to follow. You are expressing an opinion that Bell is 'sneaky' for complying with the law thus you are suggesting that AB should be actually be breaking the law so as to avoid being 'sneaky'

The term 'rampers' (according to the internet-its not used in Canada) involves having a financial incentive to promote shares which is why I asked the question if there was a financial interest.

Even if there is no financial interest to do so as an insider he should not be posting. Further his collective posts are IMO so over the top positive as to be misleading

Banbury - What is/was his financial benefit for 'ramping'?

Banbury thanks posting the information. Not sure of the differences between the old and the new but this could be a further indication that something is happening

Thought I would change the message thread--maybe a RRR insider looks at this board

Robins - Given your viewpoint you should not own RRR shares which is totally understandable. If you believe that laws have broken ('con man' statement) then you should also consider taking appropriate measure (police report, regulator statements etc) to enable the authorities to investigate and if warranted file charges in a court of law so that AB/RRR can respond to those allegations.

I am not familiar with the UK laws on defamation or slander but I am aware of multiple cases in Canada and USA where a statement that someone is a criminal (as in 'con man') if proven to be false in a court of law resulted in damages being levied against the person making that statement. To be fair there are also cases where making such statement were also considered 'name calling' with no award for damages. Personally I would not even want to be in court defending such statements even I believe they were true. I have much better things to do with my time (watching TV, hikes etc) and spending my money (dont like paying legal fees)

Robins are you really that naive?

people lie all the time.

Of course I am disappointed with actual results.

If I were in control of things the DRC cash award would have been paid the day after I invested and a settlement made and paid with Glencore and everyone else the following day. The big deals with DRC would have happened on Day 3. There would also be world peace, no hunger, cancer would be eliminated etc

Unfortunately I have to deal with reality that there no visible results that can be determined by outside RRR shareholders. RRR continues to suffer from self inflicted wounds to its credibility (no April update is the latest)

The promise of an April update should have easy to keep. Even if AB/RRR are waiting on a day by day basis for something to happen in the DRC. The April could have stated that or something comparable to keep its promise.

Banbury Again you have change the narrative from the article to something else. If you want to make the point that RRR has a history of failures then that point can easily be made (and agreed to) without a 2 year flawed article

I invested in RRR because of the DRC legal claim (a situation born of a failure to register the claims into a JV controlled by RRR). That failure enable VUP to sell those claims. To be clear no amount of legal work can prevent dishonest people from doing bad things. No doubt the UK has its share of criminal activity as does every country in the world so this is not unique to the DRC.

Here are some recent and current failures without pointing to flawed 2 year old article

-It also appears that RRR has failed to get its gold production equipment through customs in a timely manner.(ongoing failure)

- RRR has failed to get the gold termite samples disclosed to the public in a timely manner. (ongoing failure)

-RRR has failed to make timely payments (from original due dates) to POW for RRAL, (ongoing failure)

Most recently RRR failed to make an operation update during April 2025 (today is May 1st)

Banbury I am not going to debate a 2 year old article which was obviously flawed. IMO having to point to a 2 year old article to bash RRR's current situation and market value is a weak argument. My point is the article was totally wrong about Soma moving forward to place the Columbia gold property into production. Soma did it.

Your point (uncertainties about a royalty being paid) is not made in the article. Instead of acknowledging the article (or least part of it) was wrong you changed the measuring point (or goal post)