Member Info for Bannor

@Obs .... I've been musing on your SoA thoughts & the lack of mention of certain assets(s) & I'm not sure I would link the two or the SoA is the likely fundbase for the $3.5M .... based on:

a) I think the lack of mention of asset(s) is likely due to how far off they currently are in having any potential to realise revenue or be close enough to being so for a sale (& Ganfeng are still my ideally placed ' potential' purchaser.

b) a sale of a JV asset takes time & lots of negotiation & would need to have commenced a fair long time ago to be at a point of signed off or awaiting signature pending other 'trigger' points .... Messiupio bought a significant wedge of shares mid March & in my opinion he'd run the Rusk on 'insider' trading infringements if a a SoA like you're alluding to was in play at the time ....which for me rules that potential out.

But let's wait & see ... we shouldn't forget we invested the best part of $5M for the Sonora JV assets so selling them (or any part) shouldn't be done cheaply ..... but then this is a Gobbygas based crew so hold onto your hats eh....

Cheers Obs (put that one in a frame on your wall!!) looks good .... on the strength of that TC's certainty on the matter appears well founded & maybe we should cross fingers the banks don't agree after all & get demoted.

If this is going to happen & it appears now it might I'll still be happier when it's confirmed we have our 20% though, 60 days (57 now?) Should see it one way or another & as one of many long term holders I'd like to think they'd at least offer the opportunity for existing shareholders (underwritten if necessary) to fund the $3.5M for the next stage with a placing based on the number of shares held with the option to apply for excess.... rather than letting their mates in again....

...... as a comment pointed at me I suspect (nay hope) it might allay a concern or two... :-)

...... hit the nail on the head in the first two words .... you "think" ... & I "think" you might well be right & also hope that's the case however I would prefer some certainty so that I didn't need to "think" whether it is or isn't sorted but would "know" instead.

I did "think" at one point that we wouldn't have stuffed & treated BCN in the way we did ... but we did.... I did think they had some good assets in Leogang .... but we didn't.... I did think we had some promising Argentine assets but we haven't.... I did think Kiran was against consolidation turns out he wasn't....... MOST of all when I first invested here 2012/2013 I didn't think I'd still be waiting for an out in 2020 but here I am.

I did think about a lot of other things as well all of which have either turned out as bad as or worse than I thought they would at the outset.... or.... haven't happened like we were told/suggested/indicated or implied they would.

My thoughts on Messiupio, Strangle, Sucking, f~©kbourn & our dear departed Gobbygas are well known enough so I don't trust them to have covered anything.... so whilst I hope & "think" you may be right I'd rather see it formally written or the Banks acceptance of the deal on the table - I don't care which ...

...and of course an RNS confirming bank agreement in the next 60 days would be the best solution & ease any concerns

..... yes I get that but it also means that the second precondition as its been written in the RNS's won't /can't be satisfied .... there may be provision for this eventuality in the contractual details we haven't seen of course but considering this move by the court to 'potentially' (no guarantee as it says may) demote the banks creditor status was something of a surprise I'd just like to see some clarification on how the second precondition, in the absence of agreement, will he deemed as having been satisfied/met or is no longer relevant .......failing that whether the lack of a settlement agreement has any potential impact on taking our 20% ownership &/or the ability of DEV with Indo Sino not having the ability to progress via sanctioned stockpile sales without us in tow.

As I said I'm hoping all is OK but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with some clarification!!

Hey TC.... I'd like to agree & I hope you're (& you quite possibly are) right.... my only concern is the wording & legal standing/reading of the 2nd precondition of the agreement which reads in the RNS's as:

This precondition requires DEV to reach a settlement agreement with the secured bank creditors.

So if they don't reach an agreement & the courts bump the banks to the same status as anyone else an agreement hasn't been reached has it & therefore the precondition as it's written & we've currently seen it won't be met however the courts have made provision for $2.5M from the sales of Ore to be used to settle the small & employee creditors which is equal to the amount escrowed by us currently for that purpose .... effectively in my view potentially giving DEV the ability to proceed without us suddenly just from the now permitted sales of the stockpiles.

Now maybe I'm over picky maybe not - but I'd like to see some confirmation/clarification on the position /status in respect to the second precondition if banks don't agree to the offer on the table whether or not it risks them getting demoted as creditors.... it's the "REQUIRES DEV TO REACH A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT" bit that I just have a twitch over.

It's not like we haven't been shafted & committed our own fair share of shafting in the past is it??

...Indeed ... right now we own ZIP of Amapa & as the agreement is currently written/announced unless the banks agree to the offer on the table we won't ....so what next:

a) bank agreement in the next 60 days & release of our escrowed funds for our initial 20%

b) a change to the purchase agreement after refusal by the banks (hopefully on the understanding the banks are demoted & the courts sanction further sales) to release the escrowed funds for our 20%.

c) the banks refuse agreement the courts sanction further sales for DEV & they continue operations & project plans without our % ownership or funds ...there is no change to the purchase agreement & we're left sitting on the outside looking in.

I hope a) doubt b) & fear c) .... be nice if Kiran would (or he'd been asked in his interviews to) outline the options, outcomes & advise if we're just working on the project currently for free &/or gambling on the outcome &/or it's all covered with our ownership & interests are protected regardless of how it breaks.

No mention in that article of the port disaster & loss of 6 lives in 2013 which was what actually halted mining operations ..... is it just me thinking it's either shoddy or deceitful reporting as usual .... & in my opinion probably the latter!!

.... my thoughts on the outcome with the creditors ?

Two responses...
Firstly the small & employee creditors will get paid either from our escrowed $2.5M if the Banks accept the offer or from sales revenue if the banks don't play ball that much is clear ....to me anyway.

The bank creditors however, providing there is nothing else in play, now find themselves between a rock & a hard place in my view .... to me they are effectively being directed by the courts to accept the settlement being offered to them & they have 60 days to do so before 'consideration' (not guaranteed) of them being demoted to minor creditor status .... so do they risk that or accept what they have been offered ...I expect them to take legal advice on the potential legitimacy of a demotion if they decline to accept the current offer & that advice might impact on their acceptance or denial but all things considered for me it's very risky & potentially more costly to them if they don't now accept the existing offer on the table - won't be cheap to legally challenge a court sanctioned demotion.

So personally (on the proviso there isn't another play in progress!) I think the banks will probably now accept the offer made to them & we should hear soon (i.e. within 60 days Max) on this, however that's not guaranteed & so just has the potential to continue to thwart our existing plans..... hoping to hear sooner rather than later .... probably best to look for news elsewhere than this site though eh!!

Lawrence.....

EMH MCAP is currently based on 100% ownership of Geomet & sentiment toward the potential CEZ deal, which I agree is likely to get passed at the EGM & although you perhaps rightly should I wouldn't necessarily guarantee/trust KDNC to do what you expect ....they shafted BCN when they held 20% voting power some years ago & then tried a ridiculous TO whilst Kiran Messiupio sat on their board - but I suspect you know this - different story different time & unlikely to happen but should be taken into consideration in my opinion.

Additionally EMH do not get the €29.1M...... they get €12.3M for 51% of Geomet & the rest is placed into the account of Geomet alongside your loan balance (which becomes a contribution so no longer for repayment) to progress the project.... as & when expenditure requires it EMH will be required to supply further funds to progress alongside CEZ in regard to to 49% of Geomet still held by you.

It's wise to consider all the spokes in the wheels of an AIM co & not just the nice shiny ones being pointed out.

@MadChatter 11:24...... our history LoL :-))

.....finally some positive news after all the years of failed projects, poor decisions (choice of 'friends'!) & actions...

Potential or potential pitfall?

... courts have ruled that $10M dollars worth of revenue of ore can be sold net of costs & that $2.5M be used to settle outstanding small & employee creditors & the balance for recommissioning studies /works etc.

... the idea of the banks being demoted to minor creditors if they don't sort themselves out is really good news as it will hopefully force them to accept, )what I can only assume the courts felt reasonable) the offer as presented to them as it is. This then will release the escrowed funds & give us the initial 20% ownership - however if the banks don't agree for any reason & run the 'risk' of being minor creditors that means the $2.5M of our escrowed funds won't be needed for the original purpose it was escrowed for as that would be settled from the permitted sales of $10M..... I don't trust or have any faith in our BoD as I've stated on more than one occasion but I hope Kiran & co have got this covered to safeguard our own position as both the initial $2.5M for 20% & our subsequent $3.5M for an additional 7% & the uses it was to be put to now appear catered for in the $10M allowed net revenue from sales.

Wouldn't be the first time we got shafted but I guess at least time it doesn't appear to be linked/caused/reliant on Gobbygas in any way so that's a plus & perhaps there's hope.

A very VERY welcome development but still only a scratch on the surface in terms of any significant recovery for many hence I completely understand the posts of some .... whilst others who may have bought in for the first time a couple of weeks ago will be ecstatic & full of understandable plaudits.... we're not even close to the consolidation price & Kirans last buy in yet....

Hopefully some good news to come shortly (within a couple of weeks) in the form of the banks arms being bent successfully by this court decision which will release our escrowed $2.5M funds to settle the small & employee creditors instead of the first $2.5M of the permitted $10M sales & give us our 20% ownership - at the moment we still own nothing & I just hope this hasn't/doesn't open the door for our 'partner' to slam the open door in our faces &/or we have secured a set of keys & access already regardless of the what next..... if the banks don't agree for any reason unless the agreement is changed the 2nd precondition for release of escrowed funds & our 20% can't be met!!

Fingers crossed this court ruling provides the ammo needed for the currently empty (& the banks know it!!) gun were pointing at the banks heads.

Keep your eyes peeled for further news....

Commonwealth environmental approval - Yangi:

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02224368

Indeed..... excluded by virtue of the 'loans' pending termination due to its conversion to a contribution by EMH as part of EMH's funding obligation to progress the project as a 49% JV partner ......ergo no longer a loan

Why do you think that TC..... from what I can see they are simply converting the outstanding loan amount & instead deeming it EMH's contribution which to me simply means that it forms part of EMH monetary contribution to Geomets cash position giving Geomet the cash to progress the project in respect to EMH's remaining 49% holding of Geomet (which they currently hold 100% of having sold 51% to CEZ for €12.3M), they are left with 49% of Geomet already so issuing them more shares would make a right mess of the agreed ownership & contradicts what is clearly stated below in my view:

( if) The existing intercompany loan between Geomet and EMH UK will be converted into a monetary contribution to the equity of Geomet outside of Geomet's registered share capital ("EMH Loan Equity Contribution"). As such contribution is outside of Geomet's registered share capital, it will not affect the interest of the EMH Group in Geomet (see paragraph (x) below). As at the date of this Supplementary Circular, approximately AUD10,700,000 remains outstanding under such loan.

Hi TC,

The way I'm looking at this is that the total cash payment of €29M (which is payable immediately) is split into 2 parts the smaller amount is for 51% of the Share capital of Geomet & the balance a contribution (along with the converted loan to contribution) to Geomets equity for project progress.

I suspect if it was considered that the payment of €29M for 51% of Geomet was just that it would overvalue Geomet & if they paid €29M for the 51% share holding of Geomet what then of CEZ's contribution to DFS/FEED etc.

So now:
CEZ are taking 51% of GEOMET for €12.3M & contributing €16.8M to DFS/FEED outside of the Share registry.
and
EMH are converting the loan to Geomet to a contribution & will have €12.3M for further expenditure & progressing the project alongside CEZ.

There are 2 key Milestone points at which CEZ can withdraw prior to a decision to build serviced by a refund of the 'balance' of 'their' share of unspent funds & the retention of a smaller percentage of GEOMET.

Does that work?

Oh I see....apologies I misconstrued the question.....

My reading (per announcement) is that the 'loan' will simply be converted to a 'contribution' & said contribution (or whatever is left now) will be used along with the funds from CEZ to move the project forward DFS//FEED Tec.... so no longer a loan but a contribution to the upcoming costs to progress.

At the end of it you would hope that CEZ own 51% of GEOMET & EMH 49% ..... GEOMET will be debt free & ready to go to the build/construction phases.

Hi TC isn't that covered by the fact that they will no longer include Geomet in their consolidated accounts per:

5. AIM RULE 15 AND ASX LISTING RULE 11.2
As further described in the 2019 Circular, on Completion EMH will cease to consolidate Geomet's results within EMH's consolidated accounts and the Amended Proposed Subscription would therefore constitute a fundamental change of business of the Company under Rule 15 of the AIM Rules and may be considered a disposal of its main undertaking for the purposes of ASX Listing Rule 11.2.

..... I can almost feel it .... Messiupio, Strangle, sucking & f$&Bourne plotting to vote against the EMH resolution & then to slimeball in a buyout offer at 15p per share .... not as f they haven't got form!!! LoL :-)