Member Info for addicknt

In my experience there comes a point in any negotiation of this kind when the vibes change and you get a pretty clear view if the deal has legs or not. The atmosphere changes and the adversarial nature of the discussions morphs into a more collaborative venture.

Of course, you virtually always end up with tedious argy-bargy in the final meetings, which often involve balls-achingly dull all nighters as the lawyers parade their macho pride in a ludicrous attempt to outwit the other side's lawyers, whilst simultaneously racking-up as much in fees as possible. But if the principals are robust enough they can instruct the spotty herberts to get on with it.

So are we at the point where the point where the vibes have changed? Are the main elements of the package already agreed? Has credit committee given approval? (this is the biggest challenge. If they say no, they very, very rarely go back on the decision)

I wouldn't want to hazard a guess, but I come back to the point in my original point - why is he here?

SC really be presenting at the Hannam shindig if he was worried about delivering the finance package? We have 16 working days before the loan is due for repayment, so if there were too many worries you'd have thought his time would have been better spent hammering out the details. It would take some brass balls to stand up in front of an audience and tell them all is well with the world if in fact the solids were about to hit the fan.

There's also the question of venue. I assume he's attending in person, so why would he come all the way from Quito just to attend yet another conference?

I believe Eversheds in London produced the various documentation for the loan and Charge, so I wonder if they will also be preparing the legals for the package? This would make sense, both for continuity reasons and as an explanation for Caldwell's visit.

I'm not remotely complacent about the outcome, but there appears to be plenty of positive indications of success. Fingers crossed, a lot is riding on this.

Incidentally, having emailed the company with my findings about the loan, overnight I finally received a reply from CS confirming FN as being the lender. Fair play to him, but he must have assumed the RNS had escaped my attention.

Pbow, exactly, which is why I raised the issue of the conditions precedent referred to by the company.

It comes down to a simple question: will we be advanced the money in the absence of an Environmental Permit? And will we receive protection under the CIPA for this specific eventuality? My guess is , yes.

Thanks, Darren.

Jack, your twitter friend didn't suggest his tweet was an opinion - far from it. He made a definitive statement that I was wrong. Has he corrected himself yet?

Fort, let's hope so. As Mister has just reminded us on another thread, part of Caldwell's mission was to open up a sales process to smaller mid-cap miners by presenting them with a turnkey project, a funding package would be a key element of this.

As we know, when we first introduced this type of funding BHP and Newcrest went ape and took their bats home. I wonder what they'll be thinking now? Are they still keen, or will they greet the news with a shrug of the shoulders? My guess is that BHP aren't too bothered, but the recent announcements from Newmont suggest they may very well be.

Makes it clear the financing agreement will be completed on or before the 19th July. The first RNS relating to the 10m states that a package will be conditional upon certain permits and licences being granted. The key question is which licences and permits?

From what the company has said, in so far as I understand it, the Environmental licence will not be completed for some time and we've had no guidance as to the timing of land permits etc.

If we assume a number of licences/permits will not be completed by the 19th, personally I think this is likely, and we go ahead and sign the financing agreement, I assume we will not be able to drawdown the facility until those conditions precedent are delivered. This then leads to the question of how we fund the business until such time as we can draw on the full facility? If the environmental licence really isn't due for completion until 2025, we will still have the need for a significant sum of money to get us through until that time.

Will there be a part of the package which allows us to draw on a working capital facility? Or will it come from other sources? Will the CIPA provide sufficient comfort for FN to advance part of the funds without the conditions precedent having been satisfied?

So many questions! We'll have to wait until the 19th before we get answers.

HfM, I assume any deal will include the ability to buy out any royalty deal- but it would be very expensive.

HfH, the amusing thing about FN's demand to keep it quiet is that they must have known they couldn't, so why bother with the charade?

HfH, an apology isn't necessary, but an admission of error may be appropriate, particularly from Hubris.

I think they've responded to numerous shareholder enquiries and the fact that a simple Companies House search revealed the identity of the lender. The secrecy stuff was all b0ll0cks.

Mister, Hubris quite clearly didn't bother reading the three documents, or if he did, he didn't understand them.

Jack, did your friend on twitter have any thoughts as to why FN were named in the document as the lender of the bridge loan?

RK, I assume you're basing your suggestion on the fact that DGR took out a 10m loan in January?

From what I can see that loan was lent specifically to fund their proposed rescue of Armour Energy. I'm not sure what's happened to that situation, but didn't DGR's proposals get kicked out? And I'm not sure DGR drew down on the full amount.

Anyway, the latest DGR quarterly report dated 31st March says they had A$4m in the bank and a quarterly cash burn of A$1.1m, so I'm not sure they'd be in a position to lend us 10m.

No problem, Rodney.

Rodney, check the Companies House records, we are a UK incorporated company and our listing on the London market dictates we have to abide by UK takeover rules. As we also have a Canadian listing we also have to ensure we comply with their regulations, although it's a secondary listing and UK rules take precendence. Bear in mind we are not listed on ASX and therefore Aussie rules are irrelevant. Additionally, our UK incorporation means we are subject to UK company law. So I'm sorry but you've got this one wrong.

Rodney, we are a UK company subject to UK takeover regulations.

Thanks, Woody.

Jack, that still doesn't answer the question of the new bridge loan referred to in the documents. FN are specified as the lender, surely that's pretty clear?

I've emailed the company (I don't have CS or SC email address, so I used the investors one) but would be amazed if I got a response.

Jack, it's either secured by a Charge which would have to be lodged, or it's unsecured, no Charge is given and therefore there's no need to lodge anything. But as both of us have said, who would lend to us on an unsecured basis at this juncture?

Woody, I'm also a bit confused by that bit, particularly as public disclosure of a Charge is a legal requirement.

The relevant RNS does not say the loan is unsecured - indeed, who would lend unsecured in the current circumstances?- so if it was another lender and we gave a Charge, which would rank behind the existing FN one, why hasn't that document been lodged at Companies House?