Pathfinder Minerals Share Discussion Threads

[steelr66] 25/3/2018 14:37

Well there it is, Bellingham & Trew are planning a further dilutive placing of shares at 0.6p per share! They will do this through Keith Bayley Rogers. Align Research have offered a placing at a premium to the current share price, north of 1.0p per share.

Still no one on this board has clocked that in the unlikely event the Moz courts find in PFP's favour, it is wholly irrelevant. There are no licences held by CMDN (PFP's subsidiary) that PFP is trying to prove ownership of. PFP shareholder have to realise that the MOZ government CANCELLED the two licences and issued a brand new licence to the General. PFP have not taken any action against, or appealed in the courts, the cancellation of the CMDN licences. Claiming ownership of CMDN (the historic owner of now cancelled licences) is wholly pointless. The utter definition of a pyrrhic victory.

[richie666] 25/3/2018 11:24

Well said Steel.

[steelr66] 25/3/2018 10:41

The key point that PFP shareholders need to be aware of and understand:

"Two weeks later, Pathfinder announced that Veloso and his lawyer, Diogo Cavaco, had taken ownership of the mining concessions through a separate company, Pathfinder Mozambique, which had been assigned a new licence over the area by Mozambique’s Ministry of Mineral Resources."

The key is that the disputed two PFP concessions have been cancelled, they no longer exist!!!!!! There is nothing in Mozambique for PFP to lay claim to unless PFP is prepared to sue the Mozambique government for cancelling the licences.

After the Ministry of Mineral Resources CANCELLED the concessions, the Ministry granted a new licence (singular) covering the two previous concessions that PFP is fighting for.

The PFP BoD have not informed the shareholders of this reality. The legal action of PFP has simply been to confirm its shareholding in the subsidiary CMDN. CMDN in all events has nothing now in its balance sheet. It's an empty company that Nick Trew has been chasing using shareholder funds to pay lawyers and create a story.

If by some fluke the Mozambique Supreme Court granted ownership of CMDN to PFP, SO WHAT. The mines/concessions will remain in VELOSO/CAVACO ownership. These guys get to laugh all the way to the bank. Other than pride, VELOSO/CAVACO don't care nor need to be bothered about outcome of PFP litigation. PFP has misled itself in it's legal actions. PFP should have challenged the Mozambique government for cancelling the concessions and granting a new one. Shareholders should be questioning the likelihood of that happening and PFP winning that war? Zero!

[lady_g] 25/3/2018 10:08

All these accusations are coming from the desk of Diogo Cavaco. Long term shareholders here know he would do or say anything to further his aim. Sorry Align, I can see your intentions are honourable but IMHO I think you are being used by him.

[richie666] 25/3/2018 09:39

"Last September, it told the stock market it had made £encouraging progress£ towards an out-of-court settlement and its lawyers were drafting the £framework of an agreement£ with Veloso for return of the assets. It raised £212,500 the next day with help from Beaufort Securities, the scandal-hit and now-defunct stockbroker, followed by £250,000 in December.

Jennings, whose company, Align Research, has a 3% stake in Pathfinder, obtained a letter sent by Cavaco to Trew in October, which said it was £totally false£ to suggest that a settlement was imminent and accused Trew of £giving false information to the market£. Cavaco sent further letters last month reiterating his denial.

Jennings said he wanted to oust Trew and Bellingham because their relationship with Veloso had become £toxic£. He said Cavaco had written to him offering to reopen settlement talks with Pathfinder if its bosses were replaced.

Jennings also criticised Trew, the chief executive, for drawing £170,000 a year in salary and benefits when shareholders were stuck in limbo. £There£s only one person in the bunker enjoying whisky, caviar and fine wine, and it sure as hell isn£t Pathfinder shareholders,£ he said."

DO NOT waste your vote at the EGM. It has been made unequivocally clear there will be no negotiations with current management but there will be with new management. How much longer do shareholders want to wait re a court ruling? 2 yrs, 5 yrs...

[steelr66] 21/3/2018 19:38

Dear Induna123, correct. This language was designed to create the impression there was an ongoing dialogue with Veloso/Cavaco, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The BoD has misled the shareholders & indeed the result would be a false market in the shares. If the current BoD are voted out there is a prospect for PFP, not guaranteed, but a prospect.

[induna123] 21/3/2018 16:47

Steelr66, if what you are saying is true then there is a case to be answered. When exactly was Trew aware that the framework proposal was rejected out of hand? If it was months ago, before the last fund raising then yes, those who bought in at 1.3p were indeed mislead, just like everybody else who was buying around the same time. A false market WAS created. If Trew only found out on the 26th Feb, (which would seem strange as what has he been doing for the past six months), then he could argue that he was mislead just like the rest of us.



Alternative steps to achieving a resolution

As announced in Pathfinder's Half-year Report on 28 September 2017, the Company is striving to enhance the prospect of an alternative resolution that does not rely on the courts.

As announced on 20 September 2017, the Company's regional representative in Mozambique is leading discussions on the Company's behalf with the two principal parties to a would-be resolution: the Mozambique Government and Jacinto Veloso. While the content of such discussions is sensitive, Pathfinder confirms that it has presented the framework of an agreement with Jacinto Veloso that would, if successful, result in the restoration of the licensed areas to Pathfinder's control.

[the stigologist] 21/3/2018 07:17

"subject to establishing the validity of the Requisition, will convene a general meeting."

[lady_g] 21/3/2018 07:01

Think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill to further your own agenda. Anyway, thanks for making clear your opinion.

[steelr66] 21/3/2018 04:22

Dear Lady_G, Eduardo Mondlane did meet with Veloso & Cavaco. Veloso held this meeting purely as a courtesy to Mondlane who was told in no uncertain terms there would be absolutely no negotiation with the current board of PFP. Mondlane did present a framework agreement but this was rejected immediately. The RNS statements from PFP certainly give the impression there was an ongoing dialogue, and indeed a framework agreement under discussion. This gives an entirely false and misleading impression of the relations between PFP and Pathfinder Mozambique. The question has to be asked on what basis of confidence, new investors have bought shares in PFP to keep it going. Would the new investors have bought shares in PFP if they were aware of the true state of affairs in Mozambique? Frosty to say the least.

[lady_g] 20/3/2018 18:34

I don't think they have ever said they were in conversation with Cavaco. The local rep must have had meetings with Veloso and the mining ministry as the RNS's state. Are you saying he has misled the Board or are you saying for some reason none of the meetings ever happened?

[steelr66] 20/3/2018 18:24

Panadin, exactly the point. The BOD are always very optimistic prior to a fundraise, even though in a vacuum there have been no conversations with Veloso/Cavaco. Pure lies for the sake of raising next year's salary........

[panadin] 20/3/2018 17:37

On Oct 21st we were told that multiple conversations had taken place with pfp regional rep and bod was 'optimistic'.
On Oct 26th just 5 days later, RNS advises that a rep for Veloso confirms no negotiations taking place.
Why was this information not supplied by the pfp regional rep who was promised a substantial % of pfp for successful conclusion of a deal?

[steelr66] 20/3/2018 17:24

Lady-G suggest you look at the RNS of 19th October and announcements post this date. I'm simply stating facts, not 'twisting' anything. There was simply no negotiation whatsoever between Veloso/Cavaco and the BOD when Nick Trew made these statements which doubtless encouraged investors to take up the share placing. This is a classic case of creating a false market in shares based on deliberately misleading statements by a BOD. Cavaco is in the lead here on behalf of Pathfinder Mozambique FYI. Again, there is no question of 'RESTORATION OF LICENCES'. The original PFP/CMDN licences were CANCELLED by the ministry of mines in Mozambique 2011. You cannot restore or transfer a licence that DOESN'T EXIST!!!!! The only tangible asset in respect of the mines is a licence granted to Pathfinder Mozambique owned by Veloso/Cavaco. It seems the shareholders of PFP don't want to accept this actuality which is legal & binding in Mozambique wholly aside from the corporate litigation. It would appear that (CEO)Nick Trew is also under investigation from a different bureau shortly to hit the media. Let's see who the goodies & the baddies are in this nonsense.

[lady_g] 20/3/2018 16:25

This is what PFP said in the October RNS "As announced on 20 September 2017, the Company's regional representative in Mozambique is leading discussions on the Company's behalf with the two principal parties to a would-be resolution: the Mozambique Government and Jacinto Veloso. While the content of such discussions is sensitive, Pathfinder confirms that it has presented the framework of an agreement with Jacinto Veloso that would, if successful, result in the restoration of the licensed areas to Pathfinder's control." I think that is quite clear. Why are you twisting that, it says "has presented the framework of an agreement". It doesn't say as you make out that a framework is under negotiation. It just says "presented". There is a big difference so again, I don't see what your problem is. Sorry, perhaps I am just being rather dense here (no need to agree), but aren't you trying to make a big negative out of nothing? I also note they say they were in discussions with Veloso and the Mozambique Govt. No mention of Cavaco.

[steelr66] 20/3/2018 15:57

To get to the nutcracker, the BOD of PFP issued statements during a fundraising that were simply not true. There has never been a 'framework' agreement under negotiation, yet Nick Trew in October 2017 gave a statement to this effect just prior to a share placing........PFP shareholders are in for a binary bet, YES or NO. The CEO Nick Trew has clouded these boundaries by issuing false statements implying he/PFP has a relationship with Veloso/Cavaco which could NOT be further from the truth. Talk about shareholders being led down the garden path......Complaints have been made to AIM, FCA & the NOMAD. This is tantamount to fraud, raising money based on statements made from a BOD that they know not to be true, yet happy to receive the proceeds from investors who have bought into the BOD 'Story'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I challenge anyone to PROVE me wrong.

[steelr66] 20/3/2018 15:10

I'm not Tim btw. Lady_G the reality is the two licences that used to exist were extinguished and replaced with a single licence borne into the new entity Pathfinder Mozambique owned 50/50 Veloso/Cavaco. Even IF the Mozambique Supreme Court were to find in PFP's favour re ownership of the shares in CMDN, there is no asset (it was dematerialised in 2011)! Since then the BOD of PFP have issued RNS to the effect that negotiations with Veloso/Cavaco were ongoing and there is light at the end of the tunnel. FALSE. Invariably these statements were followed by a share placing to keep PFP afloat. The old licences no longer exist so there is nothing to transfer, as they weren't transferred in the first place, they were cancelled. This is a matter of fact & I invite you to check directly with the ministry of mines in Mozambique. What Richard Jennings is doing, correctly in my view, is to break the impasse with the current BOD of PFP with whom Veloso/Cavaco simply will not deal. Do not dismiss Diogo Cavaco, as he is the 50% shareholder and chairman of the board of Pathfinder Mozambique which has owned the new licence since 2011. The old issues still remain promulgated by the existing BOD of PFP. There it is. If you have any further questions please do post & I will revert. Yours,.........

[steelr66] 20/3/2018 13:25

Lady_G, the market was misled from 2011. The terms of the contract with General Veloso & Diogo Cavaco provided for a payment of $10m (USD) for transferring the shares of CMDN (the company that held the licences at that time) to PFP. PFP subsequently raised £11m (GBP) & refused Veloso & Cavaco the payment of $10m. They were treated in a very 'colonial' way. This is what led to the CANCELLATION of the licences in CMDN, and the grant of a NEW licence to Pathfinder Mozambique owned by Cavaco & Veloso. The 'old' licences no longer exist.....This is what has been misrepresented by Nick Trew. Further, this nonsense that there has been any material negotiation with Veloso/Cavaco is a myth. This was confirmed in writing by Cavaco which led to the share price collapse, as Nick Trew had given the market false information during a share placing for PFP. Richard Jennings has been in direct contact with Cavaco who is inclined to negotiate terms with a new board, but certainly not with a board composition that includes Trew and Bellingham. Makes perfect sense from a commercial point of view. Think about it. Any further questions.....Happy to respond.

[lady_g] 20/3/2018 12:46

I for one would be interested to hear more detail on your accusation of wrong doing at the BoD. Can't see anything like that myself. Hope you're not trying to twist some half truths for your own gain here. Please, go ahead and tell me THE FACTS as to why you say these things. You never know, I might turn 180 degrees and give you my backing. LOL. And for the record I am a long standing shareholder in PFP and not and have never been a member of the management team or indeed a Board member. So in the spirit of free speech, please do make your pitch.

[steelr66] 20/3/2018 12:40

Bravo, fine speech. No problem with freedom of speech or free market economics. What I don't understand is the defense of a BOD that has categorically lied to the market during a fund raising for PFP. I understand complaints have been lodged with the FCA, LSE & the NOMAD. The BOD have every reason to be fearful. Let's wait for the outcome of the EGM & subsequent investigation.

[the stigologist] 20/3/2018 12:39

As a shareholder the last persons i'd be trusting with my shares are people who've been involved with other companies where they have left 'under a cloud'. Hardly inspires confidence in their abilities or ethics.

With regard to the muppets who seem to be trying to take control of the Board you'd think they'd want to win hearts and minds of uncommitted shareholders on a BB not come across as a snide bunch of bullies out for their own personal interest and having terrible interpersonal communication skills