RE: Prem18 Mar 2026 19:28
That interpretation just doesn’t hold up when you look at what Canmax has actually done rather than what people assume. If they had genuinely written off their stake, their behaviour would reflect that — yet they remain in meaningful dialogue with Zulu management, they haven’t objected to dilution, and they didn’t vote against any of the AGM proposals. A disengaged or hostile creditor doesn’t quietly allow its own holding to be diluted without a murmur.
The idea that they would have “released fresh funds long ago” misunderstands how corporate finance works. No creditor advances new capital until operations stabilise and repayment structures are agreed, and the fact that Canmax accepted the creditor payment plans shows they are still aligned with progress rather than trying to block it.
There is also no evidence that discussions have been put on hold. If that were the case, we would have seen clear signs — public dispute, voting against resolutions, refusal of payment plans, or legal action. None of that has happened. Instead, everything points to continued constructive engagement.
So the narrative that PREM is now only relying on “gullible shareholders” simply doesn’t match the observable facts. The company is moving forward because creditors, including Canmax, have not put up barriers. Until we see actual evidence of disengagement, the logical conclusion is that both sides remain in active, constructive dialogue.
Acker
Sign In
Follow the stocks
