Upland Resources Share Discussion Threads

[riskyinvestor] 27/10/2023 12:13

Gone blue

Who do you follow Zak or Tom

??

[soulsauce] 27/10/2023 12:13

JakNife you have been posting the same thing for 5 days now. Go and do something better with your time. Same with you loglorry. We are all grown up shareholders, there is no need to save us but like I said the other day you won't. The agenda is obvious.

[pwhite73] 27/10/2023 11:41

DDD - I've done that in my previous comments. The share price chart demonstrates the warrant holders held no financial advantage over ordinary shareholders when the offer news was released. The warrants were exercised to take advantage of a potential bid not to cash in on the rise in the share price up to 8p all shareholders were able to do this.

[truant2tb1] 27/10/2023 11:39

What's does that prove?!

[dead duck resources] 27/10/2023 11:32

PWhite, could you share the careful analysis around the exercise of the warrants? The timing of initial notification of exercise and the expected admission dates that were then delayed (to coincide with issuance just after the $200m approach) looks most odd.

[pwhite73] 27/10/2023 11:25

JakNife - Ok so there is no punishment for not filing a TR1. However this does not get away from the fact all shareholders were able to profit from the fakeover news, not just warrant holders.

[pwhite73] 27/10/2023 11:22

As per my posts anybody who held shares in the company prior to the fakeover news would have been able to sell into the 'fakeover' news with profit and still can. So the warrant holders are effectively coming up against every single shareholder when cashing in.

After careful analysis the 'fakeover' news and the exercise of the warrants as some organised scam is not staking up.

[jaknife] 27/10/2023 11:21

PWhite73,

"Any individual warrant holder that sold 12 million shares would need to file a TR1."

You are so hopelessly naïve. What do you think the punishment is for an individual (non FCA regulated) if they accidently on purpose "forget" to file a TR1? I assume that you will be surprised if I tell you that there is *zero* punishment and exactly SFA that the FCA can do about it. Individuals routinely don't bother to file TR1s if it doesn't suit their purpose.

JakNife

[loglorry1] 27/10/2023 11:20

" Any individual warrant holder that sold 12 million shares would need to file a TR1."

They simply don't disclose. There is no action that can be taken against them particularly when they are not in the UK. At best they will disclose late. I think it is 1% increments/decrements during a take over period btw.

[loglorry1] 27/10/2023 11:18

PWhite most of the warrants had a lock-in so could not be converted to stock and sold until October. The Interim report said the date was 24th Oct but they were exercised week or two earlier than that. Apparently some sort of typo in the report.

To pull off a fakeover you have to be able to exercise the warrants into stock and sell into the resulting price spike.

I think you need to go back to school.

[pwhite73] 27/10/2023 11:11

The warrant holders held 100 million shares. Any individual warrant holder that sold 12 million shares would need to file a TR1. There has been none to date. I'm not wholly convinced all the warrant holders if any are selling.

The warrant holders associated with the company may have cashed in now in order to facilitate a vote. This is so that the directors can say - " we have assurances that 40% of the shareholders will vote against the takeover."

[jaknife] 27/10/2023 10:58

soulsauce,

You have the evidence of your eyes and of commons sense.

It defies common sense that anyone would pay £167.2m of cold hard cash to buy a company with negligible assets and a dream that one day it might have enough cash to buy a license, implement some 3D seismic, drill a hole and hopefully find oil.

It is no coincidence that the ramp coincided with the delivery of oodles of shares bought at just 0.4p (via warrants) and provided ample liquidity for those warrant holders to dump those shares onto shareholders that have been suckered into believing the scam.

And it's also probably no coincidence that the Company's broker (Optiva) was also the broker to Eurasia Mining, which started its own fake takeover scam four years ago this week.

It's probably also no coincidence that the FCA are investigating Optiva and have stopped them from taking on new clients.

JakNife

[loglorry1] 27/10/2023 10:57

You are quite right soulsauce. This is all speculation. However just like when solving a crime you have to look for Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Means - easy just put out an RNS that is quite legal and makes no real claim other than someone (who might also be in on it) has made an indicative approach at 14p.

Motive - 100 million warrants at c0.4p plus insiders holding lots of shares much lower would result in multi million pound gains.

Opportunity - they control the RNS feed and can sell as much stock as they want into the rise.

As outsiders we have no access to the evidence and I for one can't be bothered to dig it up even if I had access. That said I've seen this sort of thing so many times I'm convinced it is as I've described.


It's also worth considering a method called reducto ad adsurdum. A method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.

Let's assume it is true. Now what are the consequences? The main one being that SEC Capital are paying £170m for something that is worth possibly £5m - thus absurd.

[dead duck resources] 27/10/2023 10:55

A few of the many red flags here

- the RNS was not 'Announcement of a possible offer' etc, but; Response to Speculation

- Admission date of the recent exercising of warrants and options was not 7 days after the notification (as standard) but staggered dates, as if chosen/plotted on a calendar

- Malaysian

[soulsauce] 27/10/2023 10:41

But you have absolutely no evidence to say it is fake just as I have no evidence to say it is true so until you do why don't you give it a rest.

[jaknife] 27/10/2023 10:21

soulsauce,

The only "scumbags" here are those people who are lying to retail shareholders in order to encourage them to buy shares at artificially inflated prices. Plain and simply it's fraud. The aim is for those scumbags to enrich themselves by suckering in retail shareholders with a fake takeover scam.

There's no defence simply because you happy to be long of the shares that another group have chosen to manipulate for their advantage.

JakNife

[soulsauce] 27/10/2023 10:12

Indeed henry.

[henrymcivor1] 27/10/2023 10:11

The only mugs are the ones that think they know better than the FCA and the lawyers. Their own shares must be doing so great that they can spend so much time concentrating on UPL.

[soulsauce] 27/10/2023 10:04

But can't you see loglorry without ANY proof either you are just as bad but worse that you are not a holder. What is your reasoning for spending all this time here, are you a good samaritan trying to save poor shareholders from themselves, no of course not. The agenda is obvious.

[riskyinvestor] 27/10/2023 10:04

Another tweet