Member Info for WordSpaghetti

Tvhold

that is actually quite a sinister way of putting it - an AGM every 14 days until they get what they want.

This was rejected at the November AGM and it should also be rejected now. Shortening this time frame would damage the company - at the time it was because they wanted to get all their stuff through, however it didn't seem to matter than in the end waiting 42 days was ok. If it wasnt an issue they could have given notice for a AGM and a GM the very next day.

The key part here is NOTICE of. so they don't want anyone to be able to get an injunction to stop it - which severely undermines shareholder options.

MosquitoSquadron - unfortunately surely if someone like Grand Chief Ron cares so much about people, then why is he or his subordinates not respecting the shareholders of PPP? Where is the promised return to trading considering accounts are in place? Why the 2.2p CLNs (I also want 15m at 0.5p - as that was also an historical price someone bought some shares at once upon a time)? Why be vague? Why not explain and get people onside - the more information held back the less likely it is anyone with any ounce of critical thought is going to let RMD, sorry, PPP, get away with taking away all our assets for cheap.

No?

Thought not.

Wait, so people are whining that after 5+ years the batteries run out of juice? You do realise firealarms also have a back up battery (if on mains) which also require replacing every 5-10 years.

It's not unusual, but what is unusual is somehow making this into an issue for the company, rather than just general "here is the device, put new batteries in it when it beeps/sends a notification". It is no capex for the client to put 2 AA batteries, or a 9V or whatever runs it into it. Honestly.

So, a plan was offered which every shareholder on this board is able to understand and get behind, which does not weaken your shareholding at all.

1) board is proposing a massive new share issuance (like 128M on top of 112M existing, plus at least 15M more via a convertible loan note at 2.2p), that usually leads to severe dilution unless existing shareholders have pre-emption rights, or they actively organize and vote against it. If shareholders don’t act collectively, the outcome is often already decided. A CLN is like delayed dilution - not immediate but drags on the SP for years.

2)The most direct action: New share issuances and disapplication of pre-emption rights typically require ordinary or special resolutions. If enough shareholders vote against, the issuance cannot proceed.

3) Under the Companies Act 2006 UK legislation existing shareholders usually have the right of first refusal on new shares. If the board is trying to bypass this (via a disapplication resolution), shareholders can vote it down, or challenge whether the disapplication is being used improperly. This is one of the strongest anti-dilution protections available.

Ssccss - ah! I didn't notice that, eagle eye. Ok, well they are also asking in general to be able to allot shares so probably it'll turn into £500k by the time May rolls around. 200, 325, 375, who knows

Ssccss - I think if you add in the 6% -12% interest on all of this - which can also all then be converted, ASI may be nearer the mark.

£325k:

"The Company is finalising the documentation required to enter into a third secured Convertible Loan Note ("CLN3") agreement with RMD Group to provide the Company with an additional £325,000 for working capital requirements. CLN3 will have certain terms adjustments to those set in the initial RMD Group CLN1 & CLN2:"

Ssccss - I agree - I think that is what they were referring to in their recent RNS that the resolution had failed (because we are only aware that resolution 2 had failed as the company has not updated on resolution 1 failing since telling us it passed).

V111 - it has been offered. However here we are correcting factual errors, and correcting misconceptions. Please, feel free to join in.

And what else did it say Spod? And what prompt did you give it? I said it was partial and at least (no EGM or anything like that) what are our current options without collective shareholder engagement and costs with an EGM?

Spod - it's like voting in general. It isn't the individual it's the collective in adhereing to a single ideal that eventually have a voice. Your ideal is back trading (but we were promised that before the 23rd December 2025 GM yet here we are almost in May 2026... so what guarantee do you have this will still happen before the dilution (as RTO we got told aboit again)) However my ideal is that I'd rather have a stronger, better, more transparent company and if it takes a little longer then it takes a little longer.

Funny Spod - I was going to say the same thing about you. AI does not say you will lose everything, especially as it's given you no information that you've posted here.

But you also misunderstand - I entered what I know to be sections from the act, to compare what we have, and to output potential actions that can be made (without EGM or any of that) so there you have it. At the very least reject the dilution and reject the disapplication of pre-emption rights resolutions.

Whereas you probably put in "given LSE chat board tell me if .." lol

Claude took 10seconds to give me a plan - given me feeding it all the information in the RNSs.

I wonder why noone else uses the power it AI? It's really going to turn many companies on their heads, expose a lot of rot, and there'll be nowhere to hide.

Ok. here is one scenario:

1) board is proposing a massive new share issuance (like 128M on top of 112M existing, plus more via a convertible loan note), that usually leads to severe dilution unless existing shareholders have pre-emption rights, or they actively organize and vote against it. If shareholders don’t act collectively, the outcome is often already decided.

2)The most direct action: New share issuances and disapplication of pre-emption rights typically require ordinary or special resolutions. If enough shareholders vote against, the issuance cannot proceed.

3) Under the Companies Act 2006 UK legislation existing shareholders usually have the right of first refusal on new shares. If the board is trying to bypass this (via a disapplication resolution), shareholders can vote it down, or challenge whether the disapplication is being used improperly. This is one of the strongest anti-dilution protections available.

Spod, I assume you are asking to be led (ok).

I would suggest a plan, and I have used co-pilot to define 3 plans, but then we know the BoD read this board - and use our right to free speech and expression to suggest a neferious motive, rather than the truth which is our right to be able to hold the company that we collectively own to account.

I have a plan spod - do you? However giving up your power of having an effective vote is a big no no in my books - not without getting something of the same strength or power in return. And currently, I have not been offered something of similar strength or power - details, SP, retrading, confidence in what RMD will deliver in a financial setting to me given their behaviour so far.

Confidence in management is hard to get, and they don't have it. Otherwise we'd be back trading, and we wouldn't need to have this director stacking by the back door.

Hepran

Currently, I would say the accounts could be considered a positive but only if we actually returned to trading (most recent accounts of course with a long slanderous diatribe against ex Directors but not, for some reason, the corrupt company secretary and also the beneficiary of said estate), I can't see anything positive for the shareholders. We were promised returning to trading even before Christmas. It's almost May and yet again (see that Spod? what happened before is relevant to what is happening now?) that carrot of returning to trading is being dangled in front of you all. Problem is the horse can only see the carrot, not the road ahead.

you, sir, are a horse.

Spod - your statement is untrue, sorry. Allow me to correct you (I am sure others have tried to correct lots of people on board but for some reason getting them to understand is like extracting blood from spodumine).

Currently (if invested) you shareholders have the power to define the future of the company. This has not changed.

It clearly matters what has gone on before and also what is continuing to happen.

Spinks' recent Company Update RNS confirms that.

"Whilst Mavriky has been in Texas over the past week or so he has had the opportunity to meet in person with the lease owners. Further information has become available identifying potential payment of some of the outstanding royalties at the time of the original lease being in place, meaning that not all legacy royalties are unpaid, contrary to prior information and disclosure, on this particular lease, Mavriky is still investigating the amount involved, but it is thought to be around 30% of royalties that may have been paid."

Oh, so in fact money was paid. So who didn't extend the leases or complete the payments? when was this made? when did it stop being made? It matters what has happened to relate to what is currently happening, and what will or could happen.

"As previously announced, RMD Group has committed to provide funding to allow for the full resumption of operation at the Chalk Talk AH-1 well, including legacy issues to be cleared, subject to the Company and the Lease Holders reaching mutually acceptable terms."

oi oi so in fact the Texas assets are not worthless, and are in fact worth something. So why the impairment in 2025? Why give Lunn, sorry, Petroquest 51% of it? Again, it matters what has happened to relate to what is currently happening, and what will or could happen.

"The Company is finalising the documentation required to enter into a third secured Convertible Loan Note ("CLN3") agreement with RMD Group to provide the Company with an additional £325,000 for working capital requirements. CLN3 will have certain terms adjustments to those set in the initial RMD Group CLN1 & CLN2:

· The Conversion Price will be set at 2.2p - in line with the price announced for the shares returned to Mr. J White on 10 April 2026.... etc"

Why 2.2p? just because someone else got some at that price years ago? I want 15million at 0.5p - here's the cash. no? why not? You gave yourself shares that a historical share price.

Again, it matters what has happened to relate to what is currently happening, and what will or could happen.

Spink's Ron Director appointment confirms that (oi oi another Director appointed after AGM has been called - when have we seen that tactic before?) as well. Again, it matters what has happened (unelected Directors being stacked when they should be up for election at the AGM) to relate to what is currently happening, and what will or could happen

This is just going so nicely these days. onwards and upwards! GLA

Dealer - another who can't see the wood for the trees.

No negative comments. just correcting explicit errors by this guy Zag here. And correcting more errors by Pacman here. Any more errors to correct? Or is error correction now considered Negative. rofl

Hmm the 12p link didn't work.

Try this: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10166359/filing-history/MzQ1MDE2MzE0MWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

Or search for:

07 Jan 2025 Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 5 November 2024

GBP 1,122,990.89

View PDF (3 pages)