Lady_G
26 Mar 2015
Good Time to buy back in? Well, I must say that has been a healthy shake of the tree in recent days. I think the prospects here are starting to look interesting again so that was my purchase this morning 600,000 at 0.43. I fully believe any positive news here will open the flood gates to a multi bagger again - I sold out my last position at 1.75p having bought as low as 0.18 a short time earlier. So, here's hoping for some more short term gains - as they say, timing is everything and I think the silence here this past few months is masking a lot of activity behind the scenes. Fingers crossed. GLA
kicky
09 Mar 2015
hi,im new to this share and i have to say its very exciting,i have to keep checking with you guys in case i miss something....lets hope its good news soon
Andy404
02 Mar 2015
just waiting for the news....
Andy404
27 Feb 2015
come on give us some news so we can rocket up!
Andy404
26 Feb 2015
Brought in on these at 0.45, very hopeful for next weeks news!!!
Andy404
26 Feb 2015
next resistance is around 0.65 I believe? hope we can hit this before the news is released in the coming days then its up up and away.
Andy404
25 Feb 2015
when do you guys think we will get an RNS?
Andy404
25 Feb 2015
invested here yesterday, hoping for RNS ASAP confirming what we all want to hear!!
lootgalloot
23 Feb 2015
Re: Confused or what... Up to the recent RNS (31st Dec 2014) I believe Mr Trew hasn't put a foot wrong. Our victories in the UK and Moz have been genuine and were reported to shareholders in a measured and clear fashion. This is in marked contrast to the General's behaviour; he has overstated his position on many occasions and has used the Moz commercial court in a very cynical manner.All the more disappointing then that December's RNS seems to have been rushed out (prior to a full translation) in an attempt to get our side of the argument out before the General. The RNS also glosses over the likelihood that we will not receive compensation of legal costs. The tone of the release seems more concerned with reminding us of past success rather than report on the ruling at hand. Interesting that it was the General who took a period of time before he responded, this is a worrying role reversal.Nevertheless, I do not believe that the General's latest blog amounts to a 'slam dunk' in his favour. We have seen blog posts like this before where he chooses to focus on the facts (or otherwise) that support his argument and ignores other aspects of the case. Instead, I believe Mr Trew was rattled by the judgement on legal costs and as a result released a poorly worded RNS but our case regarding ownership is still strong.The current share price seems expensive given the unknowns which continue to exist but I see no reason to change my opinion and the General has failed to come up with any argument which has not previously been dismissed in both UK and Moz courts.
The man with no name
23 Feb 2015
Confused or what... Ref General Velocity's latest rant (16 Feb) in which he lays out his version of the alleged skullduggery from inception, which, if taken at face value, is a slam dunk in his favour, it is difficult not to agree that he has a case when he states that Pathfinder should publish the latest Supreme Court ruling in translation as (he alleges) Trew's version is a load of old bo**cks.It is undeniable that I would be chuckling mightily with regard to this fiasco were I not unfortunately connected by virtue of having a significant lump of my hard earned post tax wonga tied up in this garbage.I obviously would like to think that our lot are the Boy Scouts they purport to be and that the General is from some strange land where they can't be trusted to lie straight in bed anyway but I am beginning to wonder if he may be marginally the less…..erm…confused of the two parties as to the facts of the matter.
Lady_G
19 Jan 2015
Ministerial Change An interesting change over the weekend - the Minister of Mines Esperanza Bias is out and in comes somebody who, according to various news wires, is a man with a reputation for integrity, has good relations with the UK and been brought in to attract foreign investment to the mining sector. In with the new regime and out with the old. Can only be good news for Pathfinder stock.
LG
14 Jan 2015
The General's blog actually starting to make some sense. Think I might have got myself taken for a ride by all the rampers on here. Ouch!
lootgalloot
31 Dec 2014
Finally, the Supreme Court - but it doesn'y look good I have to say this latest judgment really isn't looking good. For the first time as a shareholder I have serious concerns. Failure to recognise the English Court's juristiction with regards to the 'First Costs Order' of £106K has serious implications on our chance of recovering any of the costs outstanding in the 'Second Order' (over £1m, I believe). I'd have to say it now appears very unlikely we will receive that cash.More to the point, the possibility that the Moz Supreme Court will recognise any part of the English judgment (including ownership) is now in question. The reason given by the Moz court seems to be incredibly puerile. The logic seems to go "Ah ha!; you said English Court but you didn't say which English Court".... Is this justice?Perhaps just as concerning is the amount of waffle used in the RNS in an attempt to sugar coat the news. We're first told we are still waiting for a full translation but what the heck I'll release the RNS anyway. Then the statement that the October 2013 judgment is not binding on Pathfinder seems somewhat superfluous as we are in the Supreme Court. Finally, reminding us of previous Pathfinder victories in the Maputo court also seems an uneccessary addition. The whole thing looks like it was rushed out before the General could crow about his success. Nick Trew's statement after the judgment is worryingly correct. He rightly points out the juristiction clause in the contract is of standard form and used in countless contracts around the world. The Moz Supreme Court seem to have set a very strange precedant. IMO the ruling seems almost too crazy to stand yet there we have it in black and white.Not being a legal expert I'll wait to see where we go from here but I'm very surprised that the share price is up on todays news.
DistressedSeller
19 Dec 2014
Re: It was the Supreme Court afterall Courtesy of Nikki on LSE:Regarding the Supreme Court decision, there is someone over on ii board who is claiming that the court was not the Supreme Court in Maputo, but a lesser one. Here is additional confirmation from the Venice Commission website. Judge Fatima Fonesca is currently listed in the Supreme Court circuit. I hope this finally puts the matter to bed.[link] also believe this was from the Supreme Court..Also makes interesting reading from the UK court proceedings:[link] generals not got a leg to stand on 
John6185
19 Dec 2014
Re: It was the Supreme Court afterall I asked the company also but didn't get a reply on the matter. But longandwrong on LSE reported the same confirmation as yourself. I'll Nick a callThe Final Results and Half Year Report both state that these matters were with the Supreme Court. A court in which I believe Judge Fonseca sits.
