Shareholders at the London StockExchange-listed diamond miner Vast Resources have confronted executives over what they say are discrepancies in the weight of a diamond parcel recently released by Zimbabwean authorities, following a decade-long wait.
Investors are demanding clarity on a reduction in reported volume and a sudden shift in financial expectations.
The confrontation unfolded during a question and answer session, whose details were published by the Alternative Investment Market quoted resources outfit this week. The interface was designed to address “recurring themes” from shareholders.
At the heart of the dispute is the diamond inventory released to Vast after a prolonged legal battle with the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.
The disagreement was sparked by a regulatory announcement on November 17, which stated that a 126 677,5-carat parcel had been sent to tender. This contrasted sharply with a previous announcement on May 7, 2025, which reported a total parcel weight of 135 139,47 carats, including approximately 36 475 carats of gem-quality stones, according to the document.
Vast shareholders demanded an explanation for the apparent “reduction in carat quantity” and sought clarity on newly-introduced classification categories highlighted in the November update.
In its response, Vast denied any reduction in the overall carat count.
“As has been consistently stated by the company, the balance of higher quality stones is being beneficiated in order that Vast’s shareholders benefit from the valuation uplift that can be achieved in taking stones from their rough state to a beneficiated finished product. There has been no reduction in the number of carats,” Vast said.
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
Keep Reading
The company said it had cleaned and upgraded 47 670,23 carats of stones previously classified as industrial grade into a higher value category. A balance of 8 461,97 carats — described as subject to “unavoidable boiling losses” — is being held back for a future, phased sale.
Despite the technical clarification, the failure to explicitly reconcile the initial 135 139-carat figure with the 126 677-carat tender parcel in the original November announcement has fuelled investor anxiety.
According to the document, shareholder concerns intensified after management appeared to backtrack on earlier assurances regarding the company’s debt position.
Previous communication had suggested proceeds from the diamond sale alone would be sufficient to fully repay the company’s secured debt. However, the November 17 announcement indicated additional financing arrangements might be required.
Asked when the company became aware of a potential shortfall, Vast defended its stance, saying it had “neither relied on this being the case nor notified the market of such.”
It cited its recent annual report, which referred to using diamond proceeds “and alternative funding measures” to settle debt.
“While it is anticipated, assuming the right sales conditions, that diamond sales alone are able to generate the financial resources sufficient to repay the company’s outstanding debt, the company has neither relied on this being the case nor notified the market of such,” management said.
The diamond parcel at the centre of the conflict has a turbulent history.
The 129 400-carat parcel was held by Zimbabwe’s central bank for nearly ten years as evidence in a legal dispute over mining claims previously owned by De Beers. The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe recently ruled in Vast’s favour, ordering the release of the gems, which originate from the diamond-rich Marange district in Zimbabwe.
With a crucial debt repayment deadline of December 31, 2025 approaching, the company said it has “no current intention” of conducting a placing to raise capital.
However, its admission that diamond sales may not be sufficient to cover the debt obligation has left shareholders questioning the true value of the parcel — and the timing and transparency of management’s communications.
