Member Info for Unnd

If SAVE are now anticipating late Q3/early Q4 for the publication of the Admission Document, how does that align with the revised cancellation date of 17/05/2024.

What a mess we are in.

IMO shorting should be banned.

It makes no sense to allow others to borrow someone else's property and then allow them to sell something that they do not own only to buy it back at a later date.

It is just a mechanism to manipulate the market. It is not altruism on the part of shorters.

Any perceived benefit is outweighed by the negatives imo.

Just to clarify the Bondholder debt is the face value of the Bonds and does not include the 'make whole' interest of circa $25m.

If they cannot convert the Bonds then they cannot claim the Conversion Payment (make whole interest).

That accounts for part of the difference between the debt figures now and previous.

Paul - the difference between PFC and GKP is that GKP were in default of the Bonds and Notes. GKP were also struggling to get paid from the Government.

Why would the BH/RCF force a D4E rescue and take a haircut unnecessarily when they could extend the term from 2026 to 2027/28 for the Bonds and 2025/26 for the RCF. That way they still receive 9.75% interest and do not lose on the capital?

A deal could be done with all parties and the RCF could be extended to cover the short term cashflow whilst legacy and advanced payments are recovered and asset sales arranged.

I get it that PFC have instigated the material strengthening of the balance sheet but to me that needs to be done over time and at the right time not when the market cap is £129m. If D4E is done now then it is a betrayal of shareholders at this time by the CEO.

Paul, why would the BH/RCF force a D4E rescue and take a haircut unnecessarily when they could extend the term from 26 to 27/28 for the Bonds and 25/26 for the RCF. That way they still recover 9.75% interest in a falling market and do not lose on the capital?

A deal could be done with all parties and the RCF extended to cover short term cashflow whilst legacy and advanced payments are recovered.

I get it that PFC have instigated the material strengthening of the balance sheet but to me that needs to be done over time and at the right time not when the market cap is £129m. If D4E is done now then it is a betrayal of shareholders at this time by the CEO.

'It’s like your mortgage provider losing 60% on your loan but you not being wiped out! ''

Paul - Surely the mortgage company would extend the time period, recover interest and not lose anything. Subject to the mortgagee being employed ($8m backlog).

Obviously that would not in itself resolve the short term cashflow issue for PFC but it may give the banks the confidence to extend the RCF in both time and money.

The restructure could then be done within the next 12 months whilst legacy payments and advance payments are received and PFC are more financially resilient.

I am not a chartist but it does appear that the market is determined to close that gap at 22.36.

Will it stop there is the question.

I like this bit of the announcement 'The board of directors of the Company will be considering a process to identify qualified candidates to fill the position of Chief Financial Officer' i.e. Gaffney was not qualified for the position.

The Bondholders still have over $21m of bonds to convert + over $24m of interest payments + 1.6B warrants.

If Anavio or others exceeded 30% of the issued shares then they would have to make an offer at the highest that they had paid in the preceding 12 months - not the highest SP in the preceding 12 months.

Leew/Wybased - IMO the 2 confidential wells have not been drilled. If they had been drilled then it would have to be declared by RNS to the market as a material event. An NDA does not trump stock market rules in any instance. COPL cannot stop disclosure of the revenue, if any, in its accounts as a matter of international accounting rules. The drilling of the wells was a Chinese rumour that has materialised into fact by a poster that appears to suffer from confirmation bias in all they read.

For the record the confidential wells are in BFFDU and not Cole Creek.

Can we now also expect a TR1 from the single entity outside of Canada who purchased the other 25% from Anavio following the last fund raising.

It would be interesting to see how/if that entity is related in any way to Anavio.

Medjed/Wy - a warrant gives Anavio the option to purchase a share at any time at 0.15p/share. To exercise the warrants Anavio would have to make payment to COPL at 0.15p/share, COPL would then issue the share to Anavio. At the moment Anavio have 1.5B warrants which would entitle Anavio to purchase up to 1.5B shares at 0.15p irrespective of the SP at the time.

Hope this clarifies.

Whilst I applaud what the SHG led by RBMinvest are doing in trying to stop the Anavio shenanigans we must not forget that we are in this position due to Arthur Millholland and Ryan Gaffney. It is due to their untruths, financial mismanagement and total incompetence that we are now at the mercy of the SL and Anavio.

FFS they only had to increase production at BFSU and they abysmally failed after how long and after how much?

Yes so many unanswered questions for Shareholders which no doubt the SL and Bondholders have the answers to.

1. Who was the potential JVP

2. Who terminated the discussions and why

3. What commercial terms were discussed/proposed if any

4. Was $1m of NGL injectant purchased in Oct/Nov as noted in the RNS

5. Was NGL injectant increased in Oct, Nov and Dec, if not why not.

6. Why was a Rights Issue or other form of Funding not done at 4p, or a higher figure, instead of a placing with Anavio which was eventually done at 2.6p

If we knew the answers to the above we could make an informed decision on whether to buy, hold or sell.

I hope people realise that by buying now that they are helping the Bondholders in recovering the interest payments on the Bonds. The Bondholders have just recovered $1.1m as noted in the RNS.

Arthur Millholland and Ryan Gaffney deserve all the public lambasting that can be targeted at them.

They are the Architects of the current situation due to their untruths, financial mismanagement and total incompetence.

Alfresco - 55% ownership by Anavio is the fully diluted position if the placing takes place on 15/01/24.

They may well forward sell but they have to own the shares to forward sell. At a point in time on 15/01/23 they will own 55% of the company irrespective of forward selling the shares.

As an aside forward selling of shares that have not yet been issued should be banned along with shorting.

Thanks Alfresco.

Does it state at what price the offer has to be made, if any?

On completion of the funding on 15/01/24 Anavio will own 55% of the share base.

In the UK Anavio would normally have to make an offer to purchase the remaining 45% of the share base at the highest price that Anavio had paid in the preceding 12 months (2.6p/share?).

What are the rules in this scenario for a Canadian based company?

Coplherder - RBM is quite simply trying to ascertain via the ASC whether the current BOD acted in good faith in accepting the current funding arrangement given that the 06/09/23 RNS stated that both Richardson and Cowen accepted a Bond in lieu of salary. It may also lead to an investigation into previous funding arrangements and if any of the previous Directors were Bondholders at that time either directly or indirectly.