Member Info for specinvestor99

Zumore DRC/Glencore

My perception VUP held title to licenses which were recorded in their name, then did a JV with RRR (with no change in title). then VUP sold the lincense to Glencore. So the legal issue to determine Glencore's liability is whether or not Glencore had knowledge of the RRR JV or that RRR had some sort of claim on those license.

Obviously RRR will point to its own news releases as well as any press coverage within DRC to claim the information was publicly available. RRR can also point to any communications to/from RR & Glencore (if any such communication exists)

as well as any work done on the property, exploration permits or any other paperwork filed within DRC.

Are Gecamines actions connected to Glencore ? I agree those dots have to be connected. What are actual details? or Gecamines just happen to buy a property for $20 million and then happened to find a buyer for $420million? did they do any work on the property?drilling? increase in the price of copper?

Voluntary? I have no doubt there was 'legal'' agreement to transfer the property in exchange for $20 million so Yes in that sense it was 'voluntary' VUP was not forced to sell.

Tricky by all means forward a list to RRR/AB. Personally I have never seen one in an international case and even more would a case involving the DRC

I admit they are common in personal injury cases and securities fraud, both of which have an extensive history of litigation which then led to the no upfront fee legal firms since there was an established history of successful outcomes.

Perhaps you see more of this in the UK,

Personally my opinion remains the same -first sucessful outcome in the DRC since if there is no case against Glencore until first liability is established after all if the DRC believes nothing wrong was done then any case against Glencore would be frivolous resulting in damages awarded against RRR for bring the case

large involving Elon Musk and Teksa in the US

Trey--RRR if you are correct then POW could vote for a new RRR Board of Directors

If POW took that direction it would get a lot of support from the current RRR shareholders, a new RRR BOD would IMO increase the share price.

Robins- Glencore The prior explanation was to resolve the DRC first (get written agreement followed by cash), then engage law firm to pursue Glencore.

I am not sure if RRR made any contact to Glencore but I suspect it would be: "Glencore did nothing wrong, go away and dont bother us again" RRR has no money to pursue a serious claim and RRR'ability to stay afloat would certainly be questioned by Glencore

Tray is just expressing seller's remorse. POW wanted out to focus on projects under their control. POW made money on this and there is nothing wrong with taking a profit

Some people just focus on how much money someone else is making or could be making. After all RRR still has work to do to make money with no help from POW

From RNS

"Target arrival times are early July, again subject to Government delays. "

It also mentioned additional equipment which presumably mean higher rate of gold production

Fact RNS stated "We are now again engaging in third party discussions with a view to a possible listing of the assets on an appropriate venue."

Fact RRR had discussions regarding Lithium as well which did not lead to anything

Fact RRR had discussions regarding DRC cash also which did not lead to anything

Personal viewpoint Discussions are nice but do nothing to create value to RRR or its shareholders.

Personally I dont like the ramping or hype on 'discussions'

I like the RRAL now the ball is squarely with AB to actually do something. NOW MAKE IT HAPPEN

Personally my understanding of English is not conditional on the use of links, however I respect that fact that your understanding of English is limited.

Thank you pointing this out.

News LOL I have twice acknowledge my posting history.

I posted 15 million at 19.15 and again at 19:40 with links back to the ASX

Feel free to continue to post your "PROOF" and "EVIDENCE" Your posting history speaks for itself as does mine.

It is also your choice to now change your mind on the Hot Copper Code of Conduct despite your earlier post that you would follow it.

Tray the total consideration to POW is 1.5 million. There is nothing to add. if the value of the RRR shares goes down from .25 then the value received or realized by POW will be lower. Given the RRR share is at .05 then it seems obvious that POW will receive less that 1.5 million.

RRR share price has to increase 5x for POW to get that value

My view is that AB totally fleeced POW,

News As you stated you have hard time reading. I continued to do research and found the ASX reference to 15 million so I provided that update. Unlike you I am willing to continue to review, provide accurate information

Whereas you have temerity to insist that reader of this forum must accept your EVIDENCE as PROOF that you are correct.

I posted that it is 15 million and posted an internet link back to the ASX

It is your right not to respond but IMO such an obviously false statement negatively impacts your credibility

IMO you would be better off simply confirming that the ASX is the authoritative source for ASX listing requirements

News You stated 20 million as ASX listing requirment (EVIDENCE WHICH MUST BE ACCEPTED AS fFACT)

News I agree that you are not accurate in stating ASX listing is 20 million.

ASX itself states the number is 15 million see file:///C:/Users/thoma/Downloads/A-Guide-to-Listing-on-ASX-by-Kain-Lawyers-1.pdf

Please stop posting false information and labeling it "EViDENCE" Just mark it OPINION and reference any supporting information as "SUPPORT"

You do not get decide what I (or anyone else) accept as PROOF

News - respectively I disagree. Repeating an opinion stated by someone else is still just an opinion and not a fact.

Trey is posting his opinion that there will excessive dilution.

ASX listing- you stated as 'fact' that one of the listing requirements was $20 million. I posted that it is 10 million (with reference to an Australia law firm

One or perhaps both of those must be wrong. Is 10 million, 20 million or something else. Personally I believe the law firm. Why? IMO they have the necessary background and expertise on this issue.

I also recognize the legal information cited by the Australian law firm may be incorrect or dated. Listing regulations are subject to change and as waiver by the listing exchange

It used to be accepted as fact: the Earth is flat and the Earth was the center of the solar system. Both of those "facts' are now universally accepted as false.

News--- You can offer something as 'evidence' however I (or anyone else) has to accept it has evidence.

I do appreciate the information and opinions that you post. Thank you

Not sure where 20 m minimum comes from I see 10 million

Of course this Australian law firm might not know as much as the people posting on this board

see

https://ramsdenlaw.com.au/news/what-are-the-requirements-for-listing-a-public-company-on-the-asx/

ADMISSION CRITERIA

Number of Shareholders

Minimum 400 investors @ A$2,000 or,

Minimum 350 investors @ A$2,000 and 25% held by unrelated parties or,

Minimum 300 investors @ A$2,000 and 50% held by unrelated parties.

Company Size

Profit test – A$1 million net profit over past 3 years + A$400,000 net profit over last 12 months.

OR

Assets test – A$3 million net tangible assets or A$10 million market capitalisation.

News revaluation- Who decides on the revaluation? is it within the control of RRR? or a 3rd party?

Either way is there typically a RNS?

Thanks for the UK education. This is not done in Canada or the USA

IMO this would certainly be a significant event for RRR!!!!

News- RRAL valuation- Does this value get recorded on RRR financial statements?

RRR shareholder approval- the corporate by laws would provide details on what is required. It would not be uncommon or unusual that if 50.001% shareholder consents to an action that there is no need to have a meeting

I went back and re-read the RNS which announced this deal which phrased shareholder approval 'as required' IMO there seems to be some wiggle room IF shareholder approval is not required for this agreement (legal counsel would decide).

RRR could cover that base by seeking shareholder ratification of this decision AFTER the closing.