Court document accepting the appeal

In response to appeals for clarification from small shareholders who have not received all the relevant information from Pathfinder Minerals plc, here is the court document accepting the appeal.

Pathfinder now technically insolvent?

15 July 2015

Companhia Mineira de Naburi (“CMdN”)

 HMRC claims £1.1m from Pathfinder Minerals plc (“Pathfinder”)

The Owners of CMdN, General Veloso and Diogo Cavaco, have noted the discussion on the LSE Blog disclosing the recent claim from HMRC to recover over £1.1m of VAT from Pathfinder. 

Quite extraordinarily Pathfinder seems to have actively chosen not to make a separate RNS announcement in April 2015 when it first received a claim from HMRC for repayment of  £1.1m. 

Pathfinder Minerals out of cash by March 2016

2 July 2015

Companhia Mineira de Naburi (“CMdN”)

Pathfinder Minerals plc (“Pathfinder”) Announcement of Final Results for 2015

The Owners of CMdN, General Veloso and Diogo Cavaco, have noted the announcement of Final Results for 2014 by Pathfinder.  Again it is a mishmash of half-truths, innuendo and worse.

Cash burn and funding requirements

Response to updated “Tearsheet” issued by Pathfinder Minerals plc

The owners of CMdN, General Veloso and Diogo Cavaco (“Owners”) note the updated “Tearsheet” issued by Pathfinder.  This so-called Tearsheet is nothing more than a bizarre and misleading concoction of half-truths and calumnies presenting a wholly inaccurate picture of the state of affairs of the dispute between the Owners and Pathfinder.

Mozambique Supreme Court rejects Pathfinder Minerals' claim

(1)  Mozambique Supreme Court unanimously rejects Pathfinder Minerals claims

The Owners of CMdN, General Veloso and Diogo Cavaco are pleased that the Mozambique Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Pathfinder Minerals’ claim for costs related to the UK proceedings (the so-called “First Claim”) on the grounds that the English contracts breached articles 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Code of Mozambique and therefore the UK court did not have jurisdiction over this matter. 

The effect of this judgment is that the so-called “Second Claim” for additional costs of £1m and enforcement of the UK judgment will also be rejected.