Petrel Resources Share Discussion Threads

[blakieboy7] 28/11/2020 09:39

This court case is dragging on a bit

[ducky fuzz] 28/11/2020 09:05

I think no RNs so far on the injunction must be down to the lack of the court decision to date. DF

[1teemore] 28/11/2020 08:59

I would add that it is obviously in both parties interest to resolve this issue in an amicable manner. I also suspect that the high court action related to the law governing all companies on the SE and this includes AIM exploration company.

[fenners66] 27/11/2020 20:54

Bronislav
27 Nov '20 - 18:09 - 18078 of 18081

"My own thoughts are the CP are picking shares up and not dumping.The CP are /were blocked from selling shares but there is nothing stopping them from accumulating.I also find it hard to believe the CP screwed up in relation to the share sales that led to the court case."


The blind faith on display....

The CP had 51% at their disposal at 1.25c per share - they baulked - refused , needed to buy on tick and even with that extended credit they Failed to find the cash to buy.

So buying in the market at 3.7p instead , stupid, madness and requires them to actually find some cash which they have not shown all year.
Furthermore they were involved with similar announcements for a Swedish(?) co and failed to stump up cash.

As for hard to believe they screwed up - he means that instead it was deliberate ?

[ducky fuzz] 27/11/2020 18:56

Hi B .. I drift between glass half full & half empty .. I feel it's half empty
at the moment.

The lifting of the injunction may simply be because the year is up & what grounds do the BOD have to keep the injunction.

I long to find out either way. DF

[bronislav] 27/11/2020 18:52

DF.i am expecting a positive outcome here and I suspect the end of the lock in and discontinuance of the injunction are both pivotal.I am not too savvy on legal matters but it may be that the court does not have to sit to lift the injunction as any dispute between the two parties is now resolved.It appears that Petrel and the CP have remained on good terms throughout this court case which is unusual behaviour in disputes.It is difficult to figure out just what is playing out here but I suspect it won't be too long before we find out .

[ducky fuzz] 27/11/2020 18:32

Hi B .. I'm sure the concert party want to pick up shares (for free) in exchange for an asset. I don't think they are buying. Just my opinion.

[bronislav] 27/11/2020 18:09

My own thoughts are the CP are picking shares up and not dumping.The CP are /were blocked from selling shares but there is nothing stopping them from accumulating.I also find it hard to believe the CP screwed up in relation to the share sales that led to the court case.

[bountyfull] 27/11/2020 18:06

Without an RNS confirming what has happened I am sure the injunction is still firmly in place.

[bronislav] 27/11/2020 17:59

Dusseldorf...problem is in my view the matching amounts have been showing up for a while now..if the end of the lock in period end today dumping would only start today.

[dusseldorf] 27/11/2020 17:34

IMO just price speculation linked to the 1 year anniversary of stock issue:

Application has been made for the New Shares, which will rank pari passu with the existing Ordinary Shares, to be admitted to trading on AIM and it is expected that this will take place on or around 27 November 2019 ("Admission").

..So assuming the injunction has been lifted (as per earlier posts), and maybe stock is back with them, tamraz party et al, are now free to dump 64m shares.

[bronislav] 27/11/2020 17:34

Todays trades..

220000+50000+5000=275000

127000+100000+56601=276601

Another coincidence or transfer of shares.?.

[holdingtight] 27/11/2020 13:36

Doubt it given the spread, nothing been made in the last few days.

[the diddymen] 27/11/2020 13:25

Fenners66, it begs the question 'why have PET been unable to legally enforce the agreement?'. An agreement requires both parties to undertake various actions. In the case of PET, they have agreed to widen their shareholder base, and then the new parties agree to purchase shares and bring other aspects to the party. This has not happened. To understand PET you have to understand why they have been unable to enforce the agreement. What is the problem? Doers it have other ramifications?

TD

[digadee] 27/11/2020 12:47

Looks like yet another pump and dump. Usual suspects on this thread come to mind

[holdingtight] 27/11/2020 12:25

... And back down we go. Chunk of selling close together - but looks like mainly a single seller rather than a trend ?

[lippe] 26/11/2020 21:16

Eurobic and Rupert - Saviours of The Clontarf ...

[bronislav] 26/11/2020 16:42

Thanks KD and Holding tight.

[holdingtight] 26/11/2020 14:42

That sounds like he wants to buy it by floatation, or via an existing corporate entity, funding the purchase by raising funds from existing shareholders.First option is a new entity, which he suggests will have 20,000 shareholders, that would require a public offering !The second would be an existing entity with circa 20,000 shareholders.

[kdickson] 26/11/2020 13:46

Also, my understanding from what Tamraz stated at the EGM, is that the time has come for him to "go public" with his privately held assets and bring such "huge assets" into Petrel. He explained that they needed a vehicle to do this and Petrel fitted the bill. The main purpose is so they can more easily monetize their privately held assets via increase in share price of a public company. Much more liquidity that way.
For example, if they had a valuable painting, it wouldn't be straightforward to find a buyer in order to release the profit on it. But, if that painting was owned as an asset within a public company then the share price would have increased because of that new asset. Selling shares to realise profit is much easier (press of a button basically).

[kdickson] 26/11/2020 13:39

Bronislav, according to a subscription article on Portuguese news website (jornaldenegocios.pt), this paragraph adds some further detail about how Tamraz intends to pay for the EuroBic bank:

Oct 16th:
Asked by Negócios about the origin of the funds to finance the purchase, Roger Tamraz guarantees that he has liquidity, namely through companies listed in London and Frankfurt. "I am not talking about a personal investment, of buying, but of more than 20 thousand shareholders through the stock exchange."

[the sage] 26/11/2020 13:32

The board released an RNS when the court injunction was granted and also explained why. The courts open again next week, I think it's on Wednesday. When the injunction is lifted we should have another RNS to inform us all. And, I presume, tell us why. That could be a very interesting RNS. All aboard who's getting aboard.

[dusseldorf] 26/11/2020 13:25

Bronislav - Directors who don't do sufficient due diligence on investors and their funding?