Member Info for SW01

Be careful about what you expect to get, I have nearly a million of these so I hope for the best !!! However, the note on the Cloudtag site says ..... ''the combined value of its DaaP sale and licensing deal transactions is US$275million''' ..... For all we know the upfront sale element is a tiny proportion of the 275m and the rest is a 10 year , or more, Licencing deal. Why mention a Licencing deal if the money was to be a single up from payment??? The point of a Licence deal generally is to spread the cost over the number of years, not pay it all up front.. BWTFDIK

Does anyone know how many shares were in play the last time we had any official info? accepting there will be a mass more when (if) we get the final update.

When is the official end of summer?

Would it not be better to spend your warrant money on additional shares now at this low price and buy the warrants in a year or so when the price is much higher. That way you will have more golden tickets for the long term? IMHO, no advice given or wanted.

29th June 2022

Negotiations to release the value of the Company’s remote monitoring DaaP have been successful and the Company is concluding discussions with the buyer about a settlement date.

Financial settlement for its concluded licensing deal will follow at the same time.

This will represent a beneficial conclusion for all shareholders later this summer.

The Company remains under strict non-disclosure agreements. All further updates will be published on www.cloudtag.com.

That's halfway through Q2, he's got 6 weeks left to come up with another 'reason' for further delays.

At what stage do we think they will start paying dividends and at what level? They will be a cash rich business and they don't have high CAPEX requirements.
SW01

Yes. 44,539,610

Every 0.0001p movement gives me, or hits me, £4,453.61.

26.6m at just over .25p so I'm happy and realy looking forward to next weeks news.

25.732m and looking to top up Monday and retire soon.

The fact that the Board are being paid in Shares, as well as their buy in at 0.34p, is a good sign that the price should be above that and hopefully a few multiples of it. SW01

What is more interesting is that RLH received a TR1 on 17/8, (the day before suspension), that Spreadex had reduced their holding from 17.49% to 4.93%. SW01

So it could be a good result but it isn’t without its challenges as I doubt raising funds for a coal mine in Colombia will be totally straightforward. In addition, I’m not sure how it works with Sloane potentially being say a 70% shareholder in an AIM-listed entity on re-admission but sure it is all doable. I would be more encouraged if it was clear to me who still had skin in the game here and was incentivised to get this done. It appears that Chris Akers is out having made a few quid and all, or almost all, of his warrants have been exercised too with the shares presumably sold. The directors have 15 million shares each which is something I guess, about 1% each, but when one looks at the significant shareholder list on Red Leopard’s website, it still has Spreadex as the main shareholder with 200 million shares. Really? As suspension was fast approaching and hundreds of millions of warrants were being exercised all around, investors are meant to believe that Spreadex was just sitting on its hands. Why on earth would it do that? To be fair, the website does say that the list is only accurate as at June but what has happened since then. It got me thinking more generally about the TR-1 shareholding disclosure rules. It is important that investors get an accurate picture of the shareholder base at all times but it feels that at the lower end of the market, these rules are seen as optional. I appreciate that the disclosure requirement is on the shareholder and companies can hide behind that especially when there doesn’t seem to be any repercussions on either the shareholders or the companies. In this day and age of and electronic trading and computerised share registers though, why not just make it an obligation of the company so that it would need to update the list directly in the same way that it has to disclose the number of shares in issue. Seems straightforward to me but what do I know. In the meantime, Red Leopard when you get a moment, could you update your shareholder list or ask Spreadex to file a TR-1. Thanks. Just for info SW01

Red Leopard Holdings: Promising RTO announced – shareholders must be pleased (whoever they are!) By Cynical Bear | Saturday 19 August 2017 With ten days to go until enforced suspension, Red Leopard Holdings (RLH) announced a potential RTO on Friday relating to a coal project in Colombia. I thought I’d take a look at what it might mean for the shareholders which raised the question as to the bloody shareholders actually are – does no-one file a TR-1 anymore?? Let’s look at the deal first. Red Leopard has been assigned the rights from Capital Resources Inc under an MOU to acquire the La Luna coal mining project in Colombia from Sloane Energy Group. The acquisition will be made by the issuance of shares of a minimum value of $180 million and there will be a concurrent financing of which Capital Resources will contribute $20 million which presumably will be used to fund the operations. These are big numbers bearing in mind that Red Leopard’s share price at suspension was 0.235p valuing the business at £3.6 million. The one advantage of doing an RTO so much bigger than the current value as one would think that the new shareholders would be less worried at what price the deal was structured at. By way of example, for ease of numbers, let’s assume that total funding required is say $70 million, that makes new shares being issued worth a total of $250 million including those issued as consideration for the mine - let’s call that roughly £200 million. If the deal is done at the suspension price of 0.235p, the new investors would end up with about 98% of the enlarged entity; however, if the deal was structured at 1p which would be an incredible multi-bagger for the guys in now, the new investors still end up with about 93% of the entity. Not a huge difference in the bigger scheme of things. The point being that one would hope that there would be a bit more flexibility for the current team in structuring the deal at a good price for current investors. At most it will make a couple of percentage point difference to Sloane and the new investors but could make a massive difference for the current shareholders. Part 2 to follow SW01

Abman At the AGM a 'throwaway' comment about a good Christmas present was made when I asked how long a suspension may last. However, just for my own understanding, what is the difference between this and the extended LVRT suspension. Do we only have six months to sort it out and what happens to RLH if the DD or negotiations drag on till March 18. SW01

10.6m bought in 21 mins!!!. SW01

They are now looking for shares, will take 4,000,000 at .2513 without any hesitation SW01

Abman One thing that was mentioned at the AGM, in response to my question about costs and cash burn, was that the Directors are being paid in shares not cash and at the current share price, not some fictitious rate designed to offset a drop in the share price. That IMO shows further commitment to the end result. SW01

On the train so will be brief, I was very happy with the agm although formal as you would expect. All resolutions passed. Restated the objectives in previous rns's. Quizzed them about cash burn and bank balance and happy with their response. They would not elaborate on targets as expected. Chair and CEO came across well. I now have 32 million shares and won't be selling get any till the end. Sw01