Quick question.... If LOND apparently had circa $290m USD debt, and blackrock have wrote down their $110m USD and the £4.6m GBP convertible bond... does this come straight off the company's debt figure? i.e so approx $170m USD debt outstanding?
It's a shame Mick Davies and X2 Resources didn't have interest. I'm sure he would have loved to beat the crap out of Ivan and Glencore if the payment dispute is in LOND's favour.
there has been a delay in reporting / relaying the changes in ii holdings to the market, do you think someone may have messed up and not relayed the request to suspend trading at the time they were meant to? Company will be going to the administrator bar a miracle occurring; will be asset stripped and to be honest, I think there's not one person, investor or lender that will come out of this remotely happy or well off (other than the lucky ones who got in at 0.12p and out when it was around 4-6p). As hard as it is, even for me as I am not in a position to just let that cash go... the bigger picture is some 140+ staff losing their livelihoods and incomes at the expense of whoever picks this up on the cheap. The BoD will be untouchable by other companies, so will struggle to get jobs, even if they came out of this as a developer; who will lend to them after this fiasco? We are all well and truely between a rock and a hard place...
The other thing to note, Glencore have a new off take agreement lined up with Alderon Iron Ore in Canada, when (well if) that project gets constructed. They probably have all the need they require from that at a more appropriate time. Costs have risen since early this year too, I would guess that all spead up the death too... i.e having to charter flights as BA cancelled travel to SL, pulling out non essential staff whilst still needing to pay for them with a reduced output. IO price drop at the wrong time. Fate has conspired again this great company and project. I feel that is that now.
This is the frustrating thing, it appears the short term cash problem only came about because of this. Otherwise they had additional financing available but near the end of Q4. The dispute is LOND believe GLEN owe a pre payment for the IO off take agreement, GLEN don't believe they do (or don't want to pay such a struggling company the funds at risk). The Off take agreement is some £20m (GBP I believe); but I doubt this is all in one go. I believe its a 5 year deal so assume maybe £4m payment... hell we would've all chipped in the cash if this is all it took to save our investments!
It seems to me that although there are bids, both of the bidders want the asset under their own control, not via London Mining as an entity. I'm in here, so I would be very very pleased to be wrong!
I guess this depends on your holding, i.e average SP... but in principal, yes.
After the "little or no value remaining in the equity of the Company" RNS... Obviously they saw something through this. But as many have said, they may have also off loaded heavily on Friday but not yet had the RNS about it... Still interesting to see they still saw value (even if only for a short time) .
Either that, or they believed the same crap being fed to us... Makes me fell better either way... (1) I got it right and next news is good... or (2) I'm as good as the big boys and made the same mistake... lol
Extra 1.6m+
So MS increased holding???
D'oh.. I mean PI's
That given Graeme's co-founder status, and his dedicated work beginning 2005 and the 9 years since, that he has too much emotionally & financially attached to this to just let someone rob him of it too... By default, looking after his own interests may well help us PI'd... I just don't see it including the Marampa mine. Think this is back to the long game once we get the clarity.
If someone genuinely could see which one will replicate this, I will happily also receive this info... but unless they are mystic meg - it's all just calculated guess work and risk taking base on research and validated news available to us.... If LOND has taught us anything, is that we need to 'listen' to the actions of the board, and not what is being talked about in the press... BoD were very silent the majority of the time, this was the obvious reasoning. GLA
My final hope really is that whoever (JSW / AMI) take Marampa but leave London Mining as an exploration & development company in its own right... Greenland will sort itself out, and the Saudi project will get support... but it's not a strategy I feel JSW or AMI want (i.e to build from scratch again).... they just want the resource already on tap and available. You never know, they may like to get PI's on board and stay afloat but I just cant see it now. Hopefully LOND exist in some form with some long term value for the PI's sake...
... Surely if it was that final, we should've heard by now?
172: Duty to promote the success of the company (1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to— (a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term, (b)the interests of the company’s employees, (c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, (d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, (e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and (f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company. (2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes. (3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.
Not sure how phone said regency... Meant to be actively or other.
If the BoD knew that one of the options / negotiations being followed, would result in the company being folded; or had plans (regency or other) to pre pack the assets to a new owner - no matter how slim or probable; didn't the BoD have any legal obligation to delist at that early stage and prevent all this situation? This final negotiation or pre pack route didn't just come to mind at 3pm on a Friday, I must have been something discussed for weeks or even months. Why let all this hype and activity occur???
Are any tied in too? Didn't MS buy a couple of days ago but I didn't see a sell