Member Info for Spikeyj

Del , re your 12:16, i agree it’s possible they might have sold some concentrate, and/or got tax rebates. but equally, it is also possible that they have not — they simply have not told the market either way.

… if they have managed some of either, that still wouldn’t necessarily mean they are still a going concern, as that’s about a forward looking issue, i.e. depending on what ongoing liabilities will be, and what can be reasonably assured re capacity to meet those future obligations in a timely manner.

Bfd 12:44: “You know it has gone beyond ludicrous when one fool is praising the post of another idiot that is basically libellous”

try not to be such a complete moron, bfd!

it is not remotely libellous in any way, to state as an entirely factual matter

(a) that EUA’s BoD RNS’d in january that they had enough cash to meet their ongoing obligations until early Q32024,

& (b) that a company’s BoD would be committing a serious civil offence if they permitted their company to wrongfully trade once it had become technically insolvent, or a serious criminal offence if they allowed company to wrongfully trade in that way along with an intention to defraud creditors, or were recklessly negligent in doing so.

Crypto, shareholders have only generated cash for the BoD inasmuch as people who bought shares in placings gave cash to the company, which has paid BoD pay and perks. … ‘though shareholders who paid excessive amounts for extant shares during ramp phases helped the company to then place new shares at higher values (… which made more money for BoD pay and perks.)

Soz, to clarify, wrongful trading (while insolvent) would be a very serious but civil offence if only inadvertent, but a criminal offence if there was an intentional element to defraud creditors (or, i think, if considered recklessly negligent in doing so?).

any nomad would be advising a BoD that is it essential a BoD should only continue trading if they are legitimately confident they will have funds to meet obligations as they fall due. if nomad doesn’t do that, nomad risks liability also.

Trowtech 09:43: “The BoD is saying they still have money.”

EUA RNS 11/1/24: “The Company now has sufficient working capital to meet ongoing obligations until early Q32024,”.

[that’s the first part… and then the second part of the RNS statement —>]

“… and further payments from the tax authorities, as yet unquantified, are expected to be transferred…”

it would be a criminal offence for the BoD to allow EUA to continue trading once insolvent. I in order to be considered solvent, the company must have sufficient funds available ** to meet its obligations as they fall due**.

EUA said that it had funds to do that only until july 2024 (early Q3) ….

… although EUA also seemed to be expecting *some* further money *at some point* from tax back, they would still be trading illegally (as insolvent) if that money was not scheduled to come in at the right times, and in the right amounts, to meet ongoing obligations as they fall due.

I don’t think it takes 8 weeks to check the size of a sandpile.

[stonetown the place with freddie mercury house, yes?]

Thanks mr_w & mr o, my holiday nothing too complex /adventurous, just a relaxing quiet warm time with lots of swimming, reading and good food, maybe a little local culture too. — i generally prefer not to say too much about where i am going (or nature of my professional activities) as there are too many scumbags on these boards to share much personal info. —- have a nice time yourself mr o)

Yes.

Me personallly, am rather looking forward to 29/08 as will be bobbing up and down in a nice hotel swimming pool, as part of a well earned break after a few months that have been particularly busy with professional tasks.

Treadingcarefully, 0.69p per EUA share would not be negligible — it would be significantly overpaying vs underlying value, imv.

Indeed, takes effect from 29/8, but it’s a decision already taken and announced that’s happening, rather than an ‘if’.

If some peeps want to chat politics that might relate to this london company that is all about assets in russia, here’s an interesting clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUzw9kCJ5rc

… meanwhile, as a straightforwardly factual matter, EUA has been removed from the FTSE Russell index as a share suspended for more than 40 days with no indication of resumption.

Speculation is a kind word —more probably imv simply misinformation.

… an anonymous guy on an AIM share chat board says an anonymous friend told him that an anonymous acquaintance wanted to pay am unspecified sum for his shares…

even if eeayeeeayeoh stated the unspecified amount per share, there is zero independent verification of any of it (including whether anything would ever get paid over in reality.).

… still, at least on the plus side, there was actual news about EUA today, makes a change.

(Meanwhile, isn’t it about time, in the usual rhythm of this share, that the telegram group find something really, really interesting, yet again?)

“30% of the value” is very coy / slippery — what do you claim was the price per share that you were offered?

C;mon, stockdale, eeayeeeayoh will want to imply a much rampier figure than that.

it’s marvellously reliable info, eh … an anonymous poster on the chat board of a suspended AIM share says that an anonymous acquaintance of an anonymous friend has made him an offer — straight from the horse’s mouth, lol!

Presumably about 0.3 x 0.01p per share, if we are talking about ‘value’.

(since when were shares in a london listed AIM company ‘russian debt’, lol?)