Member Info for Ssccss

Zag, your post:

"Texas

16 Apr 2026 07:45

Well Mavricky is there to get this thing up and running so expected to get one of these evening RNS today or tomorrow. Once this is done it better be back to trading.

All in my opinion obviously"

Personally, I would have preferred sparks to be on board much sooner.. I would also like to have know we would require this kind for assistance and what for. Plus how long will it take to go through this process. Some on here a very easily pleased or pretend they are.

Or are you still expecting a return to trading before the AGM?

Saying what? What are you expecting? Operations in texas to have started, cos I thought there was some outstanding issues there first.

At least I hope everyone has a good understanding of Resolution 12, which is the key one-

Disapplication of pre-emption rights.

This means giving the board authority to issue shares for cash without first offering them to existing shareholders pro rata. All shareholders should consider this carefully before voting IMO. I mean the board did mention on the first call that they were going to go down this route, so what happened?

I think some of you are forgetting, we do have shareholder rights for a reason... To protect ourselves against exactly this type of situation. Fgs use them...thats what they are for... That's why the regulatory laws exist. It is not morally wrong to use your vote in your best interests.

Well I'd be happy with the special resolution to disapply exemption rights failing and existing shareholders being offered shares at 2.2p. Works for me.

OK thanks WS, thought I had missed something. Very inconsistent.

If PPP wants to issue shares at heavily dilutive levels while suspended, especially to a related-party lender and in settlement of insiders’ fees, shareholders can reasonably ask why they are not being given the same opportunity to participate pro rata.

Why are ordinary shareholders not being offered a pro-rata chance to participate, especially at or near the same economic terms being offered to RMD/directors/placees?

That would alleviate the dilution issue and I'm sure we would all like some shares at 2.2p.

Was it a 2 for 1??

I would have thought offering shares to existing shareholders would have been a great way to support the company over the past 2 years. Although, I know SL made a mess of his attempt. Not quite sure what happened there.

WS, it says 300k in the agm notice and 325 in the recent update? Is it clear to you why?

ASI, are you double counting CLN 3 by mistake? Although, I am a bit confused about the fact it now seems to be £325k not £300k?

ASI, where are you getting 70% from? I'm getting 58-59% since suspension if the resolutions at may agm pass.

Yes exactly, which is why the CLN breach has been mentioned. Trying to force the vote on that special resolution.

The company won't offer shares to existing shareholders. They had that opportunity and decided against it. If fact didn't they discuss it on the first call, got people's hopes up and then nothing... That's seems quite a pattern with these calls.

No spod. I don't want anyone to save me. In my experience, that just doesn't happen. We have to protect ourselves and the only way we can do that is with our votes. Nothing else.

Me too Spod but this is anything but a simple situation unfortunately.

Don't keep reminding Zag of that ASI. Delta did point it out the other day but Zag likes to conveniently forget it. He also likes to forget its approaching 60% dilution since suspension if the yes votes win and that's before the RTO (irrespective of scale).

Spod, your approach seems quite simple. You just want someone to come and SAVE you... Unfortunately, no one is offering apart from RMD. Whether they actually save you or not is another thing.