Member Info for Mr0nions

Who is the codpiece who sold at 140p today ? Copper is roofing.

http://m.miningweekly.com/article/enormous-global-demand-on-way-for-copper-platinum-zinc-friedland-2017-02-08/rep_id:3861 IMHO the Goldman Sachs made a very bad call on the sector for short term profit / trading . They could not be more wrong on copper outlook.

Why Trafigura want in so badly ? ... Think we must be sitting on a lot more cooler than market thinks ....

Copper holding ; markets / press bullish copper ; sensible judge who is likely to say IMO that payment not triggered . For Astor / Emed to then fight / work out payment schedule in a separate case (unless they agree). Quarterly results will continue to show profits. Next : mine growth through exploration; efficiency increase (Alberto is big into operations efficiency and cost savings). Would be nice if we could divorce from Astor completely. Astor brings NOTHING to Atalaya ... Astor / Ash is just a leech on profits (we have to pay him marketing fees for our copper) . Contributes nothing as far as my sources tell me. So we really need to divorce. IMO. Until Astor proves otherwise that the contribute to our company ... we should really ask Atalaya to separate. A good thing if this stand off remains ... Trafigura / Astor hate each other ... that was clear from the court hearing IMO.

that is nuts - no way we have lost this but with such a verdict looming - buyers will wait and see - leaves those who have to sell for whatever reason

I had to pay 155p for stock ;-( the other day 152 - 155 ... won't make much difference when this is 300p GLA

if you have time , would love some of the fine detail - this is all info that has been hidden from us (which is now public domain if one could attend the court) As I thought (hoped) Albarto / ATYM showed that project finance was unworkable. Agreed, best outcome is we can get rid of Astor , unfortunately we have to pay him marketing on our copper - a new deal could possibly kick him out of that as well.

I don't know . I have someone there. Not sure what feedback I will get. I certainly felt that discussions were taking place when I was there. - We will have to pay Astor one day ... so contract is flawed - its whether there is any breach of current contract (I think not) If we win case (which I think we will) - then mediation will have to start to work out a new agreement that both parties accept IMO

Delayed start unfortunately .

add to copper buoyant price , Hedge Funds (the same people who IMO with GS drove the price down) have double downed their bets and calling the commodity higher : http://www.mining.com/hedge-funds-never-bullish-copper-price/

Real shame we have no colour today. I hope to have someone there tomorrow.

Surprised that there is a seller who thinks knows something .... From yesterday I did not see any negatives

I believe both sides are still in discussions . - whether they will reach agreement or want to during the hearing is another matter . Hopefully others will attend today and continue the feedback for the BB.

They spent so much time going over history , trying to build up a victim picture over failure to use project financed (and we're criticised for running over time & not focusing on contract) ... I think bystanders and thus hopefully the Judge will note that Astor failed to discuss their current marketing deal that is paying them handsomely. It's not critical , but could be seen as poor character for not sharing .... All said this may have been discussed in afternoon session .

Agreed ... There seemed to be a lot of money being offered to us : Societe Generale, Barclays , CSFB, Macquarie ... In consortium , alone ... Why were none accepted ? One would hope there is a good explanation - I would assume terms were poor Dilluted we may have been and sold at a ridiculously low price , but we have no debt . Things were not made easy for us ... And there were underhand tactics being played out ... Astor are certainly trying to tarnish Trafigura : mentioned Trafigura declaration in 2014 that they owned the mining rights (we all remember that) All said , I think the Judge only cares about the law and the contract ... Not the games and decisions that played out in the battle for Rio Tonto .

Yep he said that ... I think the Judge was alittle frustrated with plaintiff long (went over alloted time) given to historic events and emotional decision ... He wanted to focus on contract . Thinks ng about it again : if ATYM can justify reason Leach / Harry never to project finance (surely answer is terms were poor given underlying banking and copper mix) and that equity route was best when presented to them. All said equity short term hurt us shareholders as we got diluted . Next thing is quite simple : contract terms I hope someone there tomorrow to listen .... My contact additional contact struggled to hear .

Yes Alberto was there , also Roger Davey

There were a few references to Mark Rich (ex Glencore) not sure in what capacity - obviously he was a controversial character

The Judge seems focused on the law - if this is the case I see nothing wrong with what ATYM has done Astor looking to prove that company should have taken project finance - discussions were advanced - the reason why we did not take project finance was because of Trafigura Astor supposedly have a transcripted conversation where Alberto warned company was at risk of going bust and Trafigura being able to buy whole thing cheaply << I don't doubt that >> IMO it is now for ATYM to prove the following - that equity funding was better than all the project finance proposals - that the bridge loans were necessary rather than taking down project finance - why none of the project finance proposals were taken given the proposals we had I am confident the economic arguments will be solid - remember the project finance deals were made when copper was rock bottom and bank fiance was difficult - the terms may have been too punitive Don't feel too sorry for ASTOR - they are receiving royalties already from our copper sales (would like to know the full terms) Hopefully someone will attend tomorrow and pick up from me. Thanks

Some notes I took , in order, was hard to hear. Gives some colour. Plaintiffs argue - internal loans make no sense other than to avoid project finance and triggering Astor payment = Judge was quick to say that Atalaya was making sense of the agreement they had, and seemed to dismiss plaintiffs position, but understood why plaintiff was making the argument Goldman Sachs <this was interesting> 2008-09 Goldman Sachs had created some complicated investment instrument to sell to the market in order to raise funds / provided financial package to finance Emed to production - anyway <as we know> this was abandoned Project Finance - Plaintiff : It seemed to be always the plan to raise funds via project finance : defendants argue that project finance was unworkable Societe Generale - 4 years before equity finance, Soc Gen had made project finance proposal - Barclays also teemed up with Credit Suisse for $175m proposal 6th Feb 2012 - A shareholder offered $50m - Plaintiff argues that company received solicitor advice that this shareholder loan would be seen as senior debt and thus trigger the Astor repayment => Judge was not interested in this point, suggesting it was someone's advice the comapny allowed to do as it wants - plaintiff trying to prove that company took decisions only in order not to trigger Astor payment Jan22 2013 Internal letter stating interference from Trafigura - Plaintiff believes that Trafigura most motivated to prevent Astor payment; Trafigura frustrated the process, wanted to take control of the mine, think they said that they had witnesses . Project finance money - plaintiffs argued that EMED was looking for too much money - tried to discuss whole economics of the mine to point out that wanted too much funds, as said was used as a reason for not taking project finance => Judge was not really interested and questioned if necessary to go over everything. Project finance - Jan 2014 CFO Leach had term sheet for $200 from banks - 4th June 2014 Leach had a bank mandate proposal (think said ING) - argues that project finance was advanced Trafigura - concerns that they may have access to internal emails (just after they entered capital) Trafigura - meeting Aug 27th 2014 - said would participate in finance , equity or debt with Orion / XGC. Said should not fund by pure project finance. Mixed facility - spoke of 125m $ 8 year term + 175 equity - capex plan was 91 2014, 162 2015 40 2016 (then smaller amounts) ... more than needed Plaintiff says project finance should have been taken, as the due diligence had been done. - think suggested that in some of the packages Leach had provisioned a $25m Astor payment October 2014 - Macquarie bank made a proposal Nov 2014 - advisor supposedly say don't need project finance . First time this is suggested. says it was coming from Trafigura. Dec 2014 Emergency board meeting to take bridge loan (rater than projec