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. 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.
Your statement is correct. I am assuming SISG will bring two legal claims against AMI in receivership: 1. As an unsecured creditor i.e shareholder seeking as yet unknown financial claim against AMI as was hinted at in a recent RNS by the Company whereby they suggested equity shareholders will get little or no value in the light of any proposed restricting of AMI's finances and the yet to be quantified financial claim by SISG against AMI. 2. SISG as a secured creditor will demand repayment of $167m from project company subsidiary which is not in receivership. Again; I am assuming as AMI is the parent company of the project company in question; AMI in Administrative receivership as the parent company of the project company owing $167m could challenge SISG and state that as the project company assets namely; mining licences, Tonkolili site is more valuable than $167m; the project company in question must exercise due care to all unsecured and secured creditors by selling all assets in a competitive auction to the highest bidder in order to pay SISG off and any other creditors.
The operating subsidiaries own the mining rights and the assets. These subsidiaries will survive if AML is wound up, because they will no longer be subsidiaries of AML, they will be wholly owned by SISG because SISG will have bought AML's 75% by forced auction. After that auction, AML has no involvement in these subsidiaries, so AML can vanish, without affecting the operation of the mine at all.
I don't believe that any other party will be interested in bidding for AML's 75% because no one in their right mind will want to be involved in an operation in SL with SISG as 25% partners. I am of the opinion that that's been the stumbling block all along, and that's why there was never any chance of AML getting anyone else to take a slice of the Tonkolili project as long as SISG were involved. And, SISG knew this, and used it to their advantage. Now as AML's 75% share in the operating companies is up for forced auction, SISG will be the only bidder, and with no "reserve" price, they can buy it for as little as they like. I believe that they will pay AML just enough for AML to pay their ordinary creditors because they (SISG) will want to the seen to be supporting the local SL community. I don't believe that they will pay any more than that, so that any banks, lenders, and shareholders will get nothing. IMO.
JohnHenry yes your right this is one of my points from a few weeks ago how can "African Minerals", "AML", or "the Company" go in to admin with out effecting all the other subsidiaries ? as you say according to the Company structure Tonkolili, Rail and the port are all separate Subsidiaries this is something that needs to be clarified by the Administrators. look at page 19 ORGANISATION STRUCTURE. http://www.african-minerals.com/sites/default/files/attachments/AMLListingParticularsFINAL.PDF begger sorry mate but what your proposing is a none starter we are talking about Millions if not billions not a few thousand.
MY21 but isnt the 75% stake in theTonkolili mine owned by another subsidiary of AMI that is not in receivership. Hence the Administrators are not dealing directly with the Tonkolili asset..
If a.m dont get any serious offers they may as well let us shareholders and bondholders set up a limited company and transfer their stake to us and we hire a project manager to run the mine
Cant see em paying any more than 500 mil for it which wont help us
Need 1 bn to get us any value after others are paid
Lets hope we get some serious offers but i dought it
Thank you MY21 for explanation. This bb will be going down next week. Please contact me at nohowmo@gmail.com
Good morning Mate I feel compelled to correct you if I may. SISG is not an unsecured creditor in respect of PFX liability of $167m. However; as the asset known as Tonkolili mine is deemed to have greater value than $167m liability; when SISG starts to demand their payment outstanding via the Receivers; the Receiver will highlight the following: 1. SISG is indeed owed $167m as a secured creditor against the Tonkolili asset so the Reciver will argue as the asset is worth more than $167m; the asset must be auctioned to the highest bidder to pay SISG's liability and any surplus should be used to pay other secured creditors first and then unsecured creditors if there are any monies left over. 2. IN so far as shareholdings in AMI is concerned; SISG is now an unsecured creditor just like all other shareholders in AMI. Moreover; you recall one of the previous RNS announcements claimed that SISG has made a number of financial claims against AMI which meant any restricting will mean shareholders will see little value or words to that effect. What the receivership means that any financial claims made by SISG whether it is for £1 or £1bn; such a claim will be unsecured in the same way your current losses as a shareholder is also an unsecured creditor claim. In a nutshell; based on currently available public information about AMI's financial status prior to receivership; the only secured claim by SISG is for $167m o/s secured debt facility which they bought from a consortium of secured bank creditors inorder to force AMI into submission through their ultimately unsuccessful restructuring negotiations over the past few months. I hope this is helpful.
WKRB rating $85? Ha ha ha , robot!!! http://www.wkrb13.com/markets/546201/analysts-set-african-minerals-limited-target-price-at-85-50-lonami/
discussion with Deloitte about what MY21 said afew days ago :- Both shareholders and the Chinese shareholder; SISG have identical rights as unsecured creditors now that the company is in administrative receivership. Even if the SL Court finds in favour of SISG for the outstanding payment of $167m; those assets whilst are not subject to receivership ; are deemed to be worth more than the current outstanding project finance debt of $167m
Plus we have a legal claim to our assets if we make one
It may be alot easier negociating this with a.m threw our administrater than trying to draw blood out of a stone
Wow thats good news so if we can speak to the bondholders and ask the to come in with us a.m wont have any dept to pay apart from firms that work for them that we can negociate with going forward
begger, if you read MY21 posts a few days ago, he said SISG's PFX payment $167M is now also unsecured credit and which meant we don't need to pay SISG fully or don't pay at all. Hope that bondholders agree to our proposal.
It can be done just like the oil company like u mentioned. Grant probably knows this but hasnt thought of it. The chepest way is to find a partner willing to pay the pfx dept because a bank would want us to stump up 65%
If you are reading this bb, please tell Grant how to do it.
Ask Michel Surin . He has done that with Timan Oil & Gas and he is now non-excutivedirector of Timan.
My apologies it is my iPhone auto correct. I meant I copied in Gibril and the contacts at Shandong. Should create a stir :)
Then if they want to buy it they we nagociate with us if shareholders want to sell it all as a package. Crazy ha