Member Info for Travelcard

$200m!? Really, is that as exploration licences or once in full production?

Presumably that's the broker selling down its positions to retail clients?

No - any shell which lists from Jan will have a meaningful amount of capital and therefore be more attractive for an RTO.
So your logic is - that at 15p a company will deal at 9x cash. Possibly +10x once expenses are taken into account for the RTO. I accept there is a premium to cash but it ain't 9X. If the acquisition target is any good it should just list, the comms on raising a mil are only c.£50k and overall the listing costs are cheaper. As I said BARGEPOLE!

Market Cap at double assets - overpriced steer clear.

She could be related to the Anglo American, I mean (AEZL), possibly dormant subsidiary of AA, that reviewed the ARC licences and decided their were other Zambian areas that deserved loooooove.

Wishful thinking here, come back to me with an article like this when ARC are meaningful producers or in a JV. Going to be a long wait I guess.

I find the failure of "believers" to look objectively at this company astonishing!

On one hand, a case is being pursued through the UK High Court for £14m in damages but the litigant "does not have the money to follow through" and on the other hand a dormant company with assets of £1 is supposedly picking up £1.95m of liabilities! Am I missing something here!!

I can't quite see how the weather is in Zambia from leafy Surrey. Except to say, here it is slightly overcast and dare I say a little foggy. In fact, not dissimilar to your daily musings on this BB.

There is an interesting paper written by John Money called Delusion, Belief, and Fact. Some people on this board should read it!

Spin the European business out and lever up the balance sheet is my thinking

Am i right or wrong? Appreciate you want this to go skywards but even the Prince of Pump must accept that your theory was misguided!

Castillo are off 60% since January so not sure this is the comps you want to be putting out. What do you do? Do you buy Castillo or ARCM on this little snippet of hope!

Don't worry about me "Fool Mar29". Underwater on an investment is not a nice place to be.. Challenge management....ask proper questions. or keep drinking the Kool-Aid!

Certainly not my job & not being paid. Just seeking clarity on the UK court case point.

Certainly not my job & not being paid. Just seeking clarity on the UK court case point. Informal chats and messages with shareholders as posters reference here is not the way for information to be distributed. When seemingly material events come to light I expect an RNS setting out the company position. Silence arouses suspicion.

I can assure you I am not Gavin Cornish, never heard of him. I am also not in SA, I am in leafy Surrey. I will however be attending Indaba should SA come off the red list. My annual and only connection with SA!

Jeremiah99 - absolutely not, re read the RNS announcements. If anything you as a shareholder should be holding the company to account.

The RNS is cleverly worded and states "exclusivity agreement with a subsidiary of Anglo American ("Anglo American")" putting Anglo American in as a term of reference. It then states "During the exclusivity period, Anglo American will be permitted to conduct a technical review" seems to me they have only ever negotiated with Anglo Exploration Zambia Ltd. Libellous, Market Abuse from me howso?

They were in discussions with "Anglo Exploration Zambia Ltd" a subsidiary of AA. Not AA. I would question whether Anglo American conducted a technical review or the sub did so. Either way it looks like the deal may have failed.

The RNS header should have had the name of the company they were under negotiation with AEZ. However, putting AA's name up in lights gets more attention. You need to re-read the announcements.

ARCM are not in talks with AA because they never have been.

SlurmsMckenzie - my apologies. My initial question was possibly not phrased properly. Are Arc liable for the full £14m or a percentage thereof?

I feel the company should release an RNS to clarify. They might only be liable for £500K which puts a different perspective on things. If so, say so. If they are potentially on the hook for £14m, say so, we can then make an informed decision.

For a small cap with a potential litigation equal to c.40% of its market cap, plus should they lose the case associated costs, I think is material. I feel the company should issue an RNS to provide clarity. There is a responsibility to maintain an orderly market that is what RNS is for. Brooms and carpet spring to mind. Not good.