Member Info for JazzyGeoff

JMUK26,

I bow to your superior knowledge. All I was pointing out that this is not a done deal for the counter memorial to follow due to the request to the ICSID on May 11th . I hope for all our sakes that the request for bifurcation is rejected and the claim stays on track.

JMUK26.

The Moroccans have kicked the Counter Memorial can down the road. I don’t think we will see that until mid-2027 on.

If the request submitted by Morocco's defence team on 11th may for bifurcation is granted (in most cases they are) there will be a jurisdictional hearing followed by the jurisdictional decision and this will determine whether their will be a Counter Memorial.

These jurisdictional arguments are standard defence tactics and are rarely successful in killing the claim.

Clark5256 - I cannot see the management or the backers accepting a low ball offer of 20%. If you look at other mining companies that have gone through the same process, the out of court settlement is normally between 20% and 40% of the claim. The 20% is for mines that barely have a mining licence. Those towards the 40% are mines like Emmerson that can demonstrate the have sunk money into it and have a mining plan, flow circuit, have offtake agreements in place and have banking facilities to finance the build. Effectively shovel ready. Using your figures might suggest a range from 9.4p to around 20p. Only time will tell.

Firstly you are stating the obvious. Of course the Directors will seek advice on any settlement. All I am saying is that the deal may not include the licences. What evidence do you have to show that the deal will include the licences?

I like many would like to see a settlement to bring this to a close however, I don't think the settlement can include handing over the mining licences to the Moroccans so OCP can operate it.

EML is a registered UK company. The directors of EML are legally bound to the Company Act of 2006. EML Directors could face fiduciary duty claims if they agree to transfer the licences without trying to achieve full value for its shareholders. Directors cannot agree to transfer the licences for less than fair value without exposing themselves to personal lawsuits under the Companies Act 2006. Morocco will not want to pay full value, it defeats doing a deal in the first place. Anyone of us could bring a case against the Directors. This they wouldn't want. At a guess I think when it is all over assuming a win or settlement, the licences could be sold to an interested party.

99icecream. This case is about compensation for exportation not about ownership of the mine. The rules within the ICSID/ BIT are crystal clear. When all the dust has settled EML will still owner the mining licences until 2046. The only way the Moroccans can take them back is if EML lose the case. The Moroccans could claim inactivity through their own mining code ACT 97. If EML win or Morocco settle then the licences stay with us. Then there is no way they can claim inactivity as they were the cause of it. As to what will happen to these licence's should we win or settle is anyone's guess but I cannot imagine the mine will get completed by us due to the bad blood between the two parties.

The next RNS I am expecting should be to inform us of the Formation of Tribunal. The deadline for both parties to agree on a the lead (presiding) arbitrator came and went on the 16th of September. Now the ICSID Secretary General appoints one. They don't generally drag their feet. Appointment is usually 4-6 weeks after the deadline for both parties to agree. So we can expect it to land some time in October. This should then be followed by the SOC (strength of claim) announcement.

A bit of info on him

https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/arbitrators/2020-10/582-Alexandrov-en.pdf

Here is the link: https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=ARB/25/22

The appointment of one of the arbitrators. Stanimir A. Alexandrov from Bulgaria.

Not much happening here until the Arbitral Tribunal is formed. This is the next bit of information I am expecting to be announce. Both parties must agree on three arbitrators . That means choosing one each plus presiding arbitrator. Lets hope we get some positive info to lift this share northwards.

This is no longer about the environmental permit and water. We have moved on from that. This fight is going to be about the BIT. Specifically article 2 - Promotion and Protection of investments. Hayden alluded to this when he took control . The Court will have to decide has Emmerson received fair and equitable Treatment. Hayden suggested not. This is what our case will be built upon.

Going back to the water issue for a moment. Here are some old notes I have been going over.

Reminex, the engineering arm of Morocco's Managem Group, has been instrumental in the development of Emmerson PLC's Khemisset Potash Project. Their contributions include:

• Basic Engineering: Reminex was awarded the Basic Engineering contract for various project components, such as water supply solutions, power supply, mine site infrastructure, and tailings storage facilities.

https://im-mining.com/2022/01/27/managems-reminex-gets-basic-engineering-contact-emmersons-khemisset-potash-mining-project-morocco/?utm_source

• Water Management Solutions: Collaborating with Emmerson, Reminex investigated and approved an improved water supply solution for the process plant, aligning with both operational needs and local requirements.

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/emmersons-moroccan-potash-project-progressing-well-2022-07-11

It has been these guys who have come up with the solutions. The best part is that Reminex is the engineering subsidiary of Managem Group, a prominent Moroccan mining company. Managem is controlled by Al Mada, a holding company owned by the Moroccan Royal family.

I find it ironic that if water is still the issue the Moroccans are rejecting solutions put forward by a company owned by the King. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Sort it out Morocco!

More research on what can be included in BIT Arbitrations.

It would appear lost profits is claimable. Emmersons claim of is NPV $2.2B would be justified but would of course have to be validated by both sides :

(Reparation): The primary principle in international law is that a successful claimant should be put back in the position they would have been in had the breach of the treaty not occurred. This involves calculating the damages that flow from the breach.

Fair Market Value (FMV): Typically, if an expropriation (or equivalent) has occurred, the primary measure of damages will be the fair market value of the investment at the time of the expropriation or at a date close to it.

Lost Profits (Lucrum Cessans): If the investor was unjustly prevented from running the business, they can also claim compensation for lost profits they would have reasonably expected to make. This is usually projected into the future and discounted to present value.

Consequential Damages: In certain cases, other consequential damages can be included, such as costs directly related to the breach (e.g., legal costs, wasted expenses).

Interest: Pre-award interest is generally awarded to compensate for the delay between the breach and the award, and post-award interest can also be included.

Mitigation: Claimants are expected to have taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses, and any failure to do so can reduce the award.

I tend to agree Ferrisc, it is not what they took from us it is about what they will take from us.

I have tried to research previous cases on the CISID website and it would appear that claimant’s awards typically fall between 10-30% of the claimed project value or NPV. I our case that is 2.2B US$ and not the 1.4B$ pre MPK. Morocco could argue that the MPK isn’t proven process yet but that would be for the CISID committee to decide. It is also evident that settlements never appear to award the full loss of profits.

So based on the precedents of these cases an award could be in the range of US$220 million at 10% to US$660 Million at the 30%.

Worth noting the Litigation Team will take between 20-40% of the final award depending on the complexity of the case.

Thanks Troajan for sharing that Proactive investor link. Now the cryptic RNS of Oct 14th have become clear. If you watch the video from 2.36 minutes in, Hayden explains exactly why we have taken this course of action.

I agree Matador78, should we win or settle the price has just gone up. I like the tone of the RNS and the confidence expressed by the litigation team and backers. It is also pleasing to see that the directors stumped up some cash. So more news to come. Probably in the Q4 statement in early Jan 2025.

I am glad Hyden is back, a nice clear RNS. Looks like we are going to do battle with the the Moroccan Government.

Beyondthesea. I don't suppose it matters now as it is up to the Government of Morocco to sort this out and not the CRUI as the BIT is an agreement at Government level. Had they took control and awarded the EISA when the book was passed up to them I don't think we would be in this mess. Instead they let the tail wag the dog.

If the statement from the CRUI website is true then that is in breach of the BIT by not providing fair treatment and full protection of the investment.

AJ27 - I imagine there are a lot of long term holders who are still under water at 4.5p. For me to walk away from this having been here for 4 years the Moroccan's have got to do better than 4.5p I would rather it go to litigation and take years rather than accept a trivial 4.5p.

Mr Jinx – I don’t disagree with you and I like the train of thought but that is all it is. Nowhere in the RNS of November 1st is a single word mentioning of the EISA permit.

The discussions are as we are led to believe for a cash compensation for damaged incurred because of Morocco’s breaches of the BIT.

It’s no to say that the EISA could not be a bargaining chip as it would cost both sides nothing. But in this RNS Emmerson are giving the Moroccan’s the chance to keep this out of the arbitration courts. It is now over to the Moroccan's as to which path we go down.