Member Info for breaktwister

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.

Https://www.sedarplus.ca/csa-party/viewInstance/resource.html?node=W7732&drmKey=d65673dfd596287c&drr=ss0f3421aea404bdc88edcd16937729bd7eb7a8b400282a717ebbda9ccf5530e589c97b1d606bf9ceb7b44a6ac43f8acccux&id=0c11f8b7998bcd96e8afc9cd4c80fe62fa7ffaef537a029a

Once again "interest" does not mean "ownership stake". Read the contract and you will see, they own NOTHING until they enter into the new P2 JV which, I have said time and time again, comes with additional commitments. Even Brad said many times, "if they wish to sell their 51% (option), then any new partner would need to adhere to the existing T&Cs for P2".

OMI own 100% of the Anza licences at present. Ask them yourself sure and they will confirm. I will look for the sedar link, is there a way to search the history of posts on here as finding it through sedar is a pain?

Having "an interest in 51%" is not the same as "owning 51%". All they have (had) is an option to own 51% by entering into a new JV which also comes with spend commitments. They are refusing to do so which means the Exploration Agreement is now terminated, and should have been terminated in Jan'23.

The problem we have is that our BOD are not acting in shareholders interests, they are letting MMA do whatever the hell they please to OUR detriment.

Starbright - you are wrong. The contract is on sedar, the link was posted before.

Starbright the key statement in your post is the words "After Phase 1, Newmont may elect to form a JV”, this is the part that admits THEY ONLY HAVE AN OPTION to take 51%, an option which it appears they are not exercising, but trying to suck something back from OMI when in reality they own nothing and need to either press on with P2 (and spend $20m on Anza), or f off.

Starbright, I would advise reading the contract and not OMIs largely incorrect interpretation. I have read it so many times I am not digging it out again but will summarise. Lets say a new JV company was created for P2, which would see MMA own 51% and OMI 49%, (Jebs, this has not happened yet), the Anza licence would then be transfered to the new company. Now, can MMA just sit and do nothing? No, because if MMA do not spend another $4m each year the contract gives OMI the right to take "managerial control" of the project. This means that OMI can spend the $20m and send the bill to MMA. This is why I say the 51% comes with further obligation to spend $20m, after which MMA will own 65%. It is all there in black and white.

Karl, OMI own 100% of the Anza licences at present. As such, there is nothing for MMA to hand back. What is needed is a clear statement of intent from MMA that they do not intend to proceed with P2 and that they forgo all rights and options, and have no further obligations, under the Exploration Agreement. i.e. the Exploration Agreement has ended.

This should have been done in Jan'23 and pressure put on them when they started C&M nonsense.

Jack/Chicken, the $2m payment was part of the P2 conditions. In my view it should never have been paid if MMA did not wish to progress to P2 but I can guess what happened: MMA lawyers would have been aware of the 90 day option period and suggested that the $2m should be paid to try and keep that option alive.

OMI should give them back the $2m and walk away. JV over, OMI retains 100%.

And if it is not fraud, it is incompetence of the highest order. Imaging buying back a portion of something that you already own on a 100% basis! I might contact Brad and sell him a few bridges while he is at it.

Maybe they are pretending that MMA has "earned 51%" rather than the "right to acquire 51%", so they can paint the return of full control to OMI as a significant win? I do not know but this thing should have been resolved a year ago, if MMA do not wish to progress then a simply letter saying so is all that is needed.

Worst case, MMA are trying to get OMI to "buy out their 51%", which would be the dumbest thing ever given OMI ALREADY HAVE 100% ownership.