Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
CHicken, yes, and I was basically ignored. "we have various legal opinions on this and it is complex" was the paraphrased response. I also reported it to the FCA but they do not provide any updates or any information about action they may or may not take. AIM is for all intents and purposes unregulated.
I don't like it one bit but I am trapped and not selling at sub 3p. Buying MMA is the quickest resolution? Sorry but that is utter bs. All it takes is one letter to end the Exploration Agreement "MMA have choosen to not progress to P2".
It seems OMI have incorrectly accepted that MMA now own 51% of Anza, if not then what exactly are they buying and at what price? A few applications in the region? So what. No, this will cost us further millions as MMA pretend they own 51% of Anza and OMI accept it. In short, OMI shareholders are shafted from every direction.
The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear that the whole thrust of the Exploration Agreement was a $50m investment towards PEA. However, it was broken into Phases so that MMA did not have the full liability from the very start, which makes sense before any drilling took place. Thus the Agreement gives them the right to walk away after P1, which it appears there is evidence, as per bhargav, that Ignacio confirmed this in previous annual meetings. Quite how MMA have now been able to convince our new BoD that completion of P1 grants them 51% equity is beyond me, I have advised Brad otherwise and been ignored. It is either incompetence or corruption.
I guess the $16m is the cost of drilling so far, $20m minus the $4m cash payments to OMI. But that is the risk that MMA took, they don't get that back just because they do not want to progress!
Bhargav, I also do not think it is coming soon, if it was, why the raise now? P1 ended in Sept'22, and 17months later these clowns still cannot enforce the contract terms which are very clearly MMA either progress to P2 or leave with nothing. MMA do NOT own 51% of Anza, and they have NOT earned 51% of Anza.
Once again, the Exploration Agreement was designed for funded drilling to PEA, the contract is clear, if MMA do not wish to progress to P2 the contract ends with no rights or obligations on either party, OMI does not owe them a penny, yet our BoD are in conversations to give away millions in future value/equity. As I said before, I already made a report to the FCA that OMI secured funding from the AIM market on the back of a contract that they are now ignoring. If these clowns give up millions when MMA have no right to it I will submit another complaint.
I am so angry and exasperated our BoD have been walked all over by MMA and have shown absolute disdain for shareholders in letting MMA drag this out while our funds deplete leading to a raise at low price.
It has been a real eye-opener just how unregulated this market is and I wish I had never f*$ng heard of Anza to be honest.
But I am stuck now, I have invested so much, including time, effort, emotion, anger, complaints to regulators, that I cannot sell at the bottom and then have these clowns appear with a Anza resolution and new JV, which is the minimum expectation, if they do not have a new JV ready to go wdf have they been doing, they know they do not have the funds to drill Anza themselves.
They put out a tweet saying "small placing as we move towards completion on the Anza claw-back". The agreement MUST be firm at this point otherwise they surely would not be mentioning it again and again and setting themselves up for what would be a terminal failure.
Jackbal, I did not expect it either, but it is only 500k. They will need to raise more of course, hopefully at a much higer share price once Anza is resolved and there is a plan for drilling it. This will be a huge year for OMI, hopefully in the right direction otherwise I will have wasted significant effort, time and money. Do I regret it at this point? Yes, because Brad/Louis do not fill me with confidence, but lets see what happens.
3.16
Couldnt get a quote for more than 50k on ii. Took the 50.
How do they complete these placings BEFORE telling the market? Down 20% on this.
No reason to disbelieve you Bhargav, I am sure there are many 7 figure holders here, especially after fall to 2.5p or whatever it was, I added a lot myself sub 3p as even though I have been furious with Brad and Louis is the past 12 months, that was too cheap given that there MUST be some resolution of Anza in the near future.
That must be another 500,000 at least for you bhargav - maybe we will see you appear on the "significant shareholders" page.
Moving in the right direction now at last, this could be a genuinely exciting time, and I was very interested to hear that Agnico might be interested in a new JV. It always worried me as to the reasons why MMA did not want to progress.
The only small issue I have is the future payment of $16m, this is far too high to simply give MMA back every penny they have spent. They spent that money to obtain an option for significant control of Anza, they now do not wish to avail of the option, but want every penny of their spend back? To me, I would be rejecting this as a $16m future lien may impact our ability to source new JV partners. I would be arguing to pay them $8m in the future, simply split the costs 50/50 which to me seems fair.
Brad mentioned timescale of 3 months to resolve, but we all know that if he says that it will 6 or more. Anyway, feels like we have turned the corner on what has been a disastrous year for holders, a decent time to buy in I think.
If we get Anza back at 100% I do not see what drilling we can do without a raise, the funds are running out and I believe the C&M costs alone at Anza are in the region of $600k pa. If we get it back I believe the strategy will be to return to the high grade zone at Apta and prove it to JORC. Will we need a JV partner to do that? I guess so, although I do not know what it will cost.
I wish I could delete the last post but I don't think there is a delete button here. I am tired of the negativity, I hope something is resolved at Anza soon..
For those new to the board, MMA had 90 days to enter into the new P2 JV company from the end of P1, which was Sep'22. 15 months has now passed with OMI refusing from the start to enforce the contract terms or set a new deadline for MMA to make a decision. Brad or Louis claimed in an interview, although it was not RNSed, that some new Colombian tax law prevented them from completing the JV inside 90 days which I do not believe tbh.
In essense, OMI obtained significant invested from the AIM marketplace on the back of the MMA Exploration Agreeement. After they have fleeced private investors with many losing 90% or more of their investment, they refuse to take any action to enforce or exit what is a timeboxed Exploration Agreement.
I have complained to the FCA and this is probably even one for the criminal fraud-squad. To not enforce, or exit, for 15 months is sheer contempt for OMI shareholders.
Rob, LLB hence I go right to the actual contract rather than trust company marketing/commentary. To be honest contract law is straightforward, rights and obligations and criteria that triggers this and that. And you are correct, if MMA do not wish to enter into the new P2 JV then the Exploration Agreement ends, with no rights or obligations remaining on either party; OMI retains 100% ownership of the licences.
DrR, link is simply Colombian verision of the RNS! But yes, I hope they can end this limbo, and think they will. But at what price? Any deal whereby we give up more than $2m is poor imo.
Starbright, one last thing I would say, I have provided detailed legal analysis and recommendations to OMI, and regardless of what the contract says, our BOD make up their own mind on how to deal with the matter, and we as PIs do not get any say in it at all, or even an opportunity to vote them out.
Worked for me. Try this https://www.sedarplus.ca/csa-party/records/document.html?id=9b6ab8c62c186a2036e75ab2106389e83167d7ef9a9466e1518fcbb9df4791d7
if it doesn't work either you can look for "material change" document from 14th Sep 2018. If you are not a lawyer don't be coming back like you understand all the terms because I won't be explaining it all like I have had to do with your incorrect interpretation of the word "interest" as opposed to "ownership".
Just so you know Starbright, I won't be wasting my time debating this matter over and over again. Look through the history, there has been much said about this previously. But I do look forward to your apology/grovelling etc.