London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
gkb47: thanks for the unwarranted personal attack.
The 'facts' are in the RNS statements made by Vast and the 'fact' that the Diamond concessions is not signed off, nor has the first tranche of the drawdown been received. As usual your comments here are completely disengenious.
Sandy - I agree that the documentation will be intrinsically complex and substantial, but that was also the same for Mercuria T2, although not quite as complex, who eventually rejected our request. Due diligence, for the same reason I believe exists today with Atlas, and is the real spanner in the works.
As for SSGI, I can't possibly imagine a single reason why SSGI would even want to drag their heels in order to finally recoup the outstanding amounts owed to them. On that basis, I would rule SSGI out of being a problem altogether, which in my opinion brings us back to the point of due diligence.
Fair enough Sandy, I was wrong to say that you were making assumptions that Atlas lawyers were dragging their feet, but as with Mercuria, the very suggestion of 'problematic' lawyers has been injected into the conversation again, and it was wrong then too, but coincidentally one that bought the company months of time free from shareholders questioning, before being let down.
gkb47: we disagree as to the facts, and therefore, obviously, as to how to interpret the situation. That is as usual.
But the main point is that Vast know all the conditions with all the parties concerned and yet still they stated in their 18th December 2019 RNS that they expected to effect (NB. effect - not merely request) drawdown by 31st December 2019. This is coupled with the lack of the signature on the Diamond concession, which is now 3 months after their expectation. I suspect these events are not unconnected. TBH it would be better is people stopped making excuses for them and their BS statements.
Daz: "Sandy - You're making assumptions that this is Atlas lawyers dragging their feet, under the mask of "complexity"."
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the documentation is going to be intrinsically complex and substantial. I did not say or imply that anyone is dragging their feet as I don't think that assumption is necessary. However, if any party is, I would first suspect SSGI. Not that I necessarily do.
gkb47: "Sandy - well correct me if I'm wrong but the terms won't have changed since they signed the original deal with Atlas. Yes it may be comoplex but that hasn't changed as far as I know since then and they were known to the parties concerned."
Actually I think there's an important to clarify. The October RNS announcing terms between Vast and Atlas concerned an agreement between those parties; but it also made clear that this was subject to agreement between Mercuria and SSGI - which quite clearly from the RNS wording had not been executed at that point:
"As stated the Deed is subject to certain specific conditions which include shareholder approval; the execution of an intercreditor and standstill agreement with Mercuria; completion of due diligence relative to each tranche; and over time completion of formalities on the Diamond Concession following grant of mining licence; and thereafter specific practical milestones on the development of the Diamond Concession up to cold commissioning of the plant."
ORT - I'm not stating that Vast have been clever with words, just that those particular arrangement of words refer only to procedure of drawdown.
Generally, and legally, the best practice for any party contracting, particularly businesses, on the basis of obtaining evidence if later required in court, is to have everything in written format - Handwritten, by email, or other durable medium.
A request in written format, in this case, for the Atlas drawdown, would be the 'usual' acceptable practice for any organisation, and thus in accordance with the Atlas' agreement, or any other.
I can't be certain what Atlas' due diligence may involve, but for the reasons that QED noted previously, I would also say that a JORC measurement of BP is required for Atlas to accept the drawdown request for T1. As a result, I also agree that a placing will be on its way swiftly where finance doesn't.
On the point about whether I'm invested, I'm just waiting for the right moment to enter. It won't be anytime sooner than the delivery of diamond news, but hopefully soon though.
I will however agree to disagree on the previous matter. Good luck.
One final point - I am not trying to hide or reveal anything. I’m reading the RNS as it’s written. Everyone is free to make their own inferences and you are clearly stating that you think Vast have been clever with their language to buy time and have only followed procedure which isn’t actually stated anywhere.
We’ll find out soon enough
Okay, we’re not going to agree on this.
Are you currently invested?
ORT - No , what is ridiculous is taking that particular paragraph to mean that every term, including DD has been met. It means specifically the procedure of Drawdown, nothing more.
For example, if AP actually knew that this drawdown would take longer than he wanted shareholders to believe, due to conditions of DD not yet being met. Then inline with the T&Cs, AP could still follow the correct procedure of drawdown and tell that to shareholders....it buys time, that's for sure. Shareholders may only start to realise what's happened months later - words in contractual law have far more power and meaning than your trying to reveal....
I’m sorry Daz but that’s ridiculous. You don’t submit a drawdown request that for instance would only satisfy the ‘procedure’ T&Cs but not the actual CPs for drawdown to complete.
The statement is all encompassing And doesn’t carve out certain T&Cs e.g. form of drawdown request.
Sure lawyers on both sides will be running through the CPs to ensure all have been properly satisfied. But that’s standard.
Sandy - well correct me if I'm wrong but the terms won't have changed since they signed the original deal with Atlas. Yes it may be comoplex but that hasn't changed as far as I know since then and they were known to the parties concerned.
The real issue here is that the financing (and the Diamonds) were due to be concluded in October 2019 and when the Diamond deal wasn't signed (there was some BS about travel arrangements - which I now don't believe) then the deal was expected to be concluded by the end of December. It wasn't and no explanations have been forthcoming.
The thing is we PIs continually get obscure and misleading statements from Vast and tweets from AP & AH and self imposed timelines are continually missed and thiungs just don't happen as they say they will. It's just not on and the NOMAD needs to raise their game here, considerably I'd say!
ORT - Yes they have, vast have followed the 'procedure' of drawdown, set out with the terms and conditions.....that doesn't mean that Vast meet the conditions of due diligence though.
Sandy - You're making assumptions that this is Atlas lawyers dragging their feet, under the mask of "complexity".
....these were the exact same kind of words and mindset that were used and circulated after we had applied for tranche 2 of the Mercuria facility, only for a condition of due diligence to get in the way, leaving Mercuria to decline our T2 request. The BB blaimed lawyers the whole time!
I'm sorry, but reading the words of the Jan 2nd RNS doesn't suggest that conditions placed upon the Atlas T1 have been met at all.
Dazbrad - so you don’t think Vast have submitted a drawdown request in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Bond Issuance Deed...
It's been 6 weeks of cold commissioning when are we actually going to be mining for resources and when are we likely to receive funds from Zimbabwe diamonds. What's holding it all up many will have bought on the timescales given but havent been met... gla?
ORT: thanks. I quite agree about the obviousness of it if the RNS is carefully read.
Daz: you miss the point. This is about the *complexity* of the deal, and hence why it takes time.
Sandy - I'm sorry bud, but the value of a particular deal is irrelevant in a UK court. What matters are the express terms agreed between the contracting party - terms where the contract in its entirety will be judged upon, not it's value. For your information, I'm an ex civil legal advisor, and I can assure you that the value means absolutely nothing.
Mizman - "We enter 2020 in a far stronger position than at any time in the Company’s history. We are resourced to place BPPM into production in the near future and we are well placed to execute our Zimbabwe diamond strategy as soon as the agreement with ZCDC is concluded, a process that we believe will be concluded shortly."...
To be fair though, the board also stated in the same RNS that they believe Vast to be a "going concern for the forseeable future"....They also stated indirectly that they had no cash left too...well to me, I interpret that as Vast are able to continue due to their dilutionary ability, because they have no cash.
ORT - I absolutely disagree. Full stop.
Sandy - as someone who has completed senior debt funding facilities you’re spot on with this comment.
BP JORC will not be a CP for T1 drawdown. That’s obvious for anyone who can be bothered to read the 2 Jan RNS
Sounded good until I saw the name at the bottom...
Spot on Sandy.
Remember this statement from the last RNS and it will clearly guide you to where VAST is heading:
"We enter 2020 in a far stronger position than at any time in the Company’s history. We are resourced to place BPPM into production in the near future and we are well placed to execute our Zimbabwe diamond strategy as soon as the agreement with ZCDC is concluded, a process that we believe will be concluded shortly."
If BPPM JORC were a condition for T1, then the timelines originally set out would all have had to be very different. The idea is a red herring.
The idea of a secret asset ready to give instant cash (and still more that this is a condition of T1) is an invention.
Has anyone here ever dealt with corporate legal paperwork, particularly as regards senior debt provision at a value in millions? I've spoken to people who have. This stuff runs to hundreds, if not thousands, of pages.
In this case, we know that there are multiple complex contracts - some linked, some individual - across multiple parties in multiple jurisdictions: Vast, Atlas, SSGI and Mercuria, with lawyers in UK, Romania, Zimbabwe and Switzerland.
I don't like the waiting any more than anyone else, and I have no idea whether or not we need to soak up a placing on the way, though we will if we have to. But we don't need to fill the waiting with bogeymen.
Patience, IMO, though it is indeed frustrating.