Member Info for Mjd2020

I think it was VAT Scuba mentioned previously Scuba but I may not have seen the same thing as you as couldn’t see an amount. It also mentions possible VAT reclaim on historical capex at WK in the accounts too.

For me I’d rather not pay the mineral extraction tax until I knew if the appeal against the rate was going to be successful. Clearly if that took too long they’d need to sell it before the decision was made and take the hit.

Perhaps waiting for a response as to the below from page 61 rather than paying the tax and hoping to get it refunded if there’s a positive decision?

Mineral extraction tax** 1,953,851

** Mineral extraction tax contains a provision of £1,652,122 reflecting a recent change to mineral tax legislation and its application to the product of the West Kytlim mine. This is made as a conservative measure as the Group is taking the necessary steps to have the decision reconsidered

——————

With regards to whether sanctions were an issue - I’d expect the auditor to have flagged that in their report.

Whatever the case, I’ll be happier when the concentrate is sold and hopefully with a lower tax rate applied because it makes a big difference to EUA and any potential buyer.

In addition to the “proposal” RNS, the notes in the 2020 accounts (events after the reporting period) also said “The Company received an expression of interest regarding a potential substantial asset sale in May 2021”.

Why the term EOI is used and what it means is up for debate (maybe pointless now) but you can google EOI in the context of M&A and the first definition I see says it’s an early stage document that includes a non binding offer.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/valuation/what-is-expression-of-interest-eoi/#:~:text=An Expression of Interest (EOI) is one of the initial,company through a formal offer.

Hi Fish4Chips, regarding what the funds were used for, the note in the accounts says the below.

“Advances made in 2022 were used to acquire earth moving machineries, fund mine operating cost and exploration programme”

The provision made for the change in how mineral extraction tax is calculated (that they are trying to overturn) was £1.6m so could be down to that with price changes also?

It’s possible they were looking at how best to proceed while the issue of how MET is being reviewed or it could be due to way the refiners were calculating the payments? Might be a question to ask at the AGM.

“** Mineral extraction tax contains a provision of £1,652,122 reflecting a recent change to mineral tax legislation and its application to the product of the West Kytlim mine. This is made as a conservative measure as the Group is taking the necessary steps to have the decision reconsidered.”

“Amounts due from related parties are non-interest bearing and are repayable on demand. Advances made in 2022 were used to acquire earth moving machineries, fund mine operating cost and exploration programme.”

Funds not hidden away in Cyprus then... That’s another AIMO down the toilet 🤦

Let’s spare a thought for the Deliveroo driver who’s had to transport another extremely hefty piece of AIMO filled humble pie across town to Toffers Towers this morning.

Doesn’t this apply?

“However, we would offer the following points on some common scenarios:

Where a UK auditor is providing standardised material to members of a group, or their auditors, for the purpose of the audit of the UK group accounts, and the group includes a Russian subsidiary, then the service of providing this material would generally not be considered within scope of the ban. Meanwhile, where bespoke material is provided for the audit of the specific subsidiary, this may qualify as the provision of auditing services to a person connected with Russia.

Where a UK company that is consolidating group accounts receives an audit report for a Russian subsidiary from a local Russian auditor, then this is generally considered the receipt and not the delivery of a service. This generally would not be considered within scope of these export bans.

If the UK company or its auditor wished to undertake any activities beyond the receipt of the report, such as discussing its contents with the subsidiary or local auditor in Russia, then we suggest they take independent legal advice and consider whether a person connected with Russia (as defined in the Regulations) is a direct or indirect recipient of audit services as a part of that interaction”

Another battery metals deal - $1.4b investment, this one being Lithium focussed.

https://www.marketscreener.com/amp/business-leaders/Daniel-Ramos-20513/news/Bolivia-taps-China-Russia-s-Rosatom-in-bid-to-unlock-huge-lithium-riches--44234391/

Yes, at the AGM last year Aubrey. Investors were able to attend online or in person. By all accounts not that many did.

Reference is:

“Toffers make believe complaint filled with AIMOs and rambling streams of thought number

200,673,881,613,538,643,813,126,743 (c)”

Apparently the case against Prigozhin has not been dropped at this point.

"The case has not stopped, the investigation is ongoing," said the agency's interlocutor.

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/908984

Below is from 13/02/2023. Took 2 mins to looks up.

“The DIT Guidance also provides clarity regarding some common scenarios pertaining to the application of the auditing services ban, as follows:

when a UK auditor provides standardised material for the purpose of the audit of UK group accounts, and the group includes a Russian subsidiary, those services would generally not be considered to be within scope of the auditing services ban. However, if bespoke material is provided for the audit of the specific Russian subsidiary, this may qualify as the provision of auditing services to a person connected with Russia; and

when a UK company that is consolidating group accounts receives an audit report for a Russian subsidiary from a local Russian auditor, this is generally considered the receipt and not the delivery of a service and typically would not be considered within scope of the auditing services ban. However, if the firm wishes to undertake any activities beyond the receipt of the report (e.g., discussing the contents of the report with the Russian subsidiary or local auditor in Russia), it would be necessary to consider whether a person connected with Russia is a direct or indirect beneficiary of such an interaction.”

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=18cee13d-9b3a-4647-bc0b-4118fb35abdb

That could have been a factor JamesB1. Perhaps he thought there want quite enough support yet.

Still, shows the cracks are exposed and how quickly things can change.

Obviously Prigozhin heard that the Timgner column had been held up and so has decided to halt proceedings.

Wonder what they offered him and what the fall out will be. Shows how vulnerable Putin is though to have negotiated with someone who has basically said that the reasons for the war were a sham, that the military is lying about the losses and that the leadership is corrupt.

Not sure what to make of this…thoughts Tim?

The FSB of the Russian Federation initiated a case of incitement to rebellion on Prigozhin's statements

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/908725

Potentially interesting turn of events if true.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/wagner-chief-accuses-moscow-of-lying-to-public-about-ukraine-yevgeny-prigozhin

My thoughts exactly LB. Personally, I’ll reserve judgement until the official group accounts have been published.

In a way it’s poor that the company publishes these figures in Russia before the group accounts are published. Too much room for misinterpretation and only having part of the overall position.

Thanks for clarifying IKN. Are the gains down to sales of concentrate or is it currency gain or something else?