Member Info for JES1889

This, exactly this!!

We are all hurting from the placing price and the circumstances leading up to it but a raise (or other source of funds) was always going to be needed before signing off the 2023 accounts.

The science has not changed, indeed it continues to progress and provide more data. We’ll get some of this from the AACR poster, albeit bear in mind the fact the detail had to be submitted several weeks ago so it won’t include anything from the 2W arm.

There’s a lot of ‘apparent’ holders venting about AS and TG. I’m not here to defend them, but want stability for the company to deliver as you do too. We also have significantly strengthened the team with SB and CC in Q1. Rather than ranting on here or X I would have expected some of you to make the effort to attend the GM at Walker Morris in Leeds to engage in a constructive conversation with AS and/or TG.. Not one shareholder did!

Following on from the CLN conversion and given the discussion around cash position I’ve been reflecting on and summarising my thoughts, no rocket science.

The FY23 financial statements will be finalised by the end of April and the directors and auditors will need to be satisfied that the going concern assumption applies and that the company will be able to continue its existing operations for at least 12 months.

I believe that we’ve been told that the company is funded through to the end of 2024. I’ve been trying, unsuccessfully, to find the precise reference to this and to cross refer this statement to the timeline since the changes to the Phase 1a and Phase 2 trial and the removal of Phase 1b. It’s possible that the trial changes have extended (or shortened) the cash runway but either way funding to April 2025, or longer, will need resolving before the end of April.

The company has at least 3 options to deal with this:

1- Deliver a commercial deal with sufficient upfront cash to finish the AVA6K trial or to get to another commercial deal;

2- Sell Dx on terms that provide sufficient cash to finish the AVA6K trial or to get to another commercial deal;

3- Raise capital, almost certainly dilutive.

I suspect that the board will be working on all options with their preference being in the above order. I think that options 2 and 3 would be ‘Plan B’, necessary of course and helpful in keeping any commercial counterparties honest.

Importantly, I believe that all three are entirely possible meaning that the board has options. The next three months should certainly be interesting! Fingers crossed all LTH!

Also quite a lot of recent Avacta related patent activity in WIPO. If you sort by date then 9 and 10 on the list are direct applicant filing by Avacta..... https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/result.jsf?_vid=P22-LRXUHY-08171

I have to say though that trying to read the 'scientific' stuff is blowing my brains out. It really does show how hard it is for the team to summarise this at a level that normal shareholders can understand. I think they actually do a pretty good job. There's some clever folk around!!

If anything the clinical timeframe has been shortened with the December update, so no concern from me about that. From here it will take as long as it takes to get the P2 design right to maximise the value.

Gmcc - I agree that the coupon element of each quarterly issue will be getting lower each time.

Overall I remain relaxed, the science works, the board has been significantly strengthened to work us to commercialisation over the coming days and months.

I looked back at the Bond agreement to refresh myself of the terms and try and understand the different perspectives of Heights and the Company. In the long term a few extra millions of shares to Heights won’t make any significant difference, but given it’s AIM and also the lack of ‘sticky’ institutional shareholdings it might mean more share price games in the short term. As I said before let’s hope there’s news beforehand to blow that out of the water.

Following the recent share price weakness the shares for the Jan-24 Coupon and Repayment are going to be issued at well below the Initial Conversion Price (£1.1875). I think we may even end up back at the £0.95 Offer Price (90% of Market Price), so lots more shares for Heights. My workings suggest total payment of £3.23m, which at £0.95 would be 3.4m new shares issued compared with 2.72m shares if they had been issued at £1.1875. An extra 680,000 shares for Heights.

On a similar topic, having refreshed my understanding of the Bond Agreement, the next quarterly repayment looks extremely important. The Convertible Bond terms allow for the Conversion Price to be reset downwards at the next quarterly repayment date (20 Apr 24) to the higher of the Offer Price (£0.95) and the then current Market Price (measured by 15-day VWAP). If there is a Reset Conversion Price then that stands to the end of the 5-year term unless the Company is able to execute a Reset Clawback by no later than 20-Jan-25. A Reset would take the Conversion Price back to the original £1.1875. To Reset would require the daily VWAP over 20 trading days within a 30 consecutive day period to be greater than 130% of the Initial Conversion Price share price (i.e. above £1.54375).

Happy for anyone to correct the above if your understanding is different. It does suggest to me that, in the absence of any news that breaks the current SP impasse, the next quarterly repayment date could, if there is a Reset Conversion Price have very material benefits to Heights if we stay around the current share price levels. At the moment the Market Price has to be above £1.3194 to issue shares for repayment/coupon at £1.1875 (the 90% Market Price). If a Reset occurs we'd have to get 30% above the Initial Conversion Price (£1.54375) to execute a Reset Clawback back down to £1.1875, that would bake in a 30% return for Heights (ignoring spread and assuming immediate sale).

Whether we are able to trigger the Clawback or not it looks to me, assuming the share price were to stay at the current level, like either way Heights would enjoy closer to 20% extra shares each repayment/coupon as a penalty for being able Reset the Conversion Price.

Hopefully positive news flow includes significant cash inflows to be able to switch to cash repayment and coupon asap.

Closing date was 20th October 2022, so 20th January will be the 5th quarter thereafter and announcement has usually been on the following business day....so yes should be Monday.

Still holding too. Not sold any since my original and only derisking (as per my history). Look in most days but not interested in most of what’s posted.

FWIW, my take is that the BOD will have no appetite to do a cut price deal in the current environment. Either there’ll be a pathway to a deal with a party(ies) acceptable to all stakeholders, presumably BRICS, or the BOD will sit tight for as long as it takes (and funds allow). High risk, yes due to the geopolitical circumstances, high reward, yes. Not dissimilar to before the “banks RNS” in October 2019. Still holding some dry powder but also have several other candidates under consideration for that.

Early seasons greetings and good luck everyone.

My connection wasn’t great (travelling, my fault). The last question, from the floor, which I’m paraphrasing, was whether the company is deliberately keeping it’s head down given the war. I think the answer was - to some extent yes they have been but that they wont be silent when there is something to say. Others may confirm/clarify.

Still here too. Been here since 2017, sold a part of my holding in 2020 to de-risk (personal rule) and only added again since. Backing the fundamentals. As always grateful to those who seek to share facts and repel to bots. When I’ve nothing to add i tend to stay quiet.

RIP JT MACS and condolences to family and friends who will hopefully take some comfort from the tributes on here. Well done BSU and all.

Just added my own 6868 at 28.55.

At least you made me laugh Thin. Thanks for the insults forgive me if I don’t engage further. I’ll sit happily with my holding and wait for the end game.

I’d wish you good luck with your latest reincarnation and attempts to disrupt but that’d be disingenuous of me. Night night. :)

The SP manipulation, of which i believe there has been plenty, has been possible because of a lack of cold hard facts on reserves. There is of course a huge body of evidence out there as to what our resources / reserves are and what the plans may be for the wider area. For me the MT Flanks + JV JORC is the confirmation to move us to another level. I suspect this has also been required by the buyer(s) in order for the BOD and their advisers to maximise sale value for shareholders. The Rosgeo JV feels like a master stroke as i take this as demonstrating the depth of partnership with the Russian state and therefore this significantly derisks future permitting / licence needs. Of course there are still steps before the MT assets are ready to mine but these are much more straightforward and therefore less risky for a surface mine.

Dealer…

Lots of LTH have a sub 1p entry point, mine was just over 1/2p back in 2017. Coincidentally approx a 48 bagger to todays price. Whilst it may seem like fantasy to do so again who knows. FWIW my own expectations are not for another 48x from here but are certainly a lot higher than where we have been held. Hopefully the JORC will give the market the greater confidence needed for a rerate ! :)

All my family accounts voted FOR all resolutions too. Anyone Long on this and not supporting the BoD must need their heads scratching.

These two extracts from the RNS suggest that financing the development of any of these additional assets should not be too problematic nor require massive fundraising. EPCF to fund the development and pay the Earnout over the life of the mine.......

The Earnout (if Eurasia decides to proceed) will be spread over the period of the development of the Additional Assets. Eurasia has 24 months in which to decide whether to select some or all of the assets to develop, &

Eurasia will be the operator of the JV and, if it chooses to do so, will develop the Additional Assets by implementing an EPCF (Engineering, Procurement, Commissioning and Financing) structure similar to that signed with Sinosteel for the Monchetundra open pit mines.

The Rosgeo Agreement allows Eurasia to gain a 75% equity stake in each of the nine new mining assets (the "Additional Assets"). The remaining 25% equity stakes will continue to be held by Rosgeo. I think that if we choose to take any of the assets forward into development then we'd be paying 75% for 75% - i.e. no discount. The key points here are control (over the whole area) and the partnership with the Russian state owned Rosgeo.

markat - i think that's the whole point here, MT does become more valuable because whoever owns it now also has the rights to the wider area. This gives control, which may lock others out of the wider MT area, but also operational efficiency. How much it enhances our value - i suspect a lot but i have no idea! :))

markat - exactly, we have to buy, and who knows what the price would be.

The thing is that we have that right which gives us control. We also have a lot of knowledge of the area. Both extremely valuable.

No free assets but control and partnership with the state.

Nath, Chris,

It's not only the operating costs but the costs to move from the rights we have know to acquiring the rights to develop. This will not be cheap, whatever 75% of the value set under the relevant Russian law if the Additional Assets had initially been auctioned by the Russian state instead of being acquired by Rosgeo. We don't yet own the 104MOZ, we still have to buy them, but we have the right to do so.

For me this is about EUA (or a buyer of EUA) having control of the wider MT area as well as partnering with Rosgeo / the Russian government. It would seem very strange for EUA to just sell the existing MT part, i'd expect the new rights to be sold either with MT (asset sale) or as part of the sale of the whole business.

In my opinion, this is tidying up the whole MT area for the benefit of a buyer.

I think this is the key for me. The JV deal is basically a small option payment of $0.5M, which gives EUA ownership rights to the the whole area (see A1ex's map). Should EUA, or a new owner of EUA, choose they can pay the Earnout to exercise their rights to develop those additional assets. The partnership with Rosgeo effectively 'inks' the fact that EUA is collaborating with the Russian government. My instinct says that the Russian government would be unlikely to do so without knowing who will be in control of EUA going forwards. If that's the case then the conclusion of the FSP must be very close, roll on Monday!!!