Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Been keeping an eye on this share with a small holding just after the recent raise. Just spotted:
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24154099.teesside-freeport-named-top-performer-government-data/
"The results come just a week after the Freeport secured it newest investor in Tees Valley Graphite, who signed a deal to base their operation on the Wilton site. " i.e. ALK is that investor (MOU with Syrah).
So the non binding MOU with Syrah for the JV to build Wilton AAM facility (graphite plant) at the Wilton International Chemicals Park (inside Teesside Freeport).
And then TVL's (100% owned by ALK) state-of-the-art lithium processing plant also at the Wilton International Chemicals Park (inside Teesside Freeport)
Looks like they chose a good spot for the two facilities.
Richard 98
you are a seriously unbalanced individual. I suggest you find some help. not joking. good luck and back to the bin after being reported for being distruptive. This is an EUA chat bin not a conspiracy theory board. go back to reddit or your mum's petticoats and get some critical thinking under your belt.
Now. back to EUA.
Richard98 is probably so young he wears braces, has acne, and of course doesn't remember that before CREST you basically had proper paper certificates. I had Shell ones for about 15 years before finally putting them electronically.
Okfornow - got 6 green boxes after your comment...! Agree fully with it
"It seems clear from the wording that any future dispute over the missing share certificate is now a legal matter with little impact on Eurasia mining.
I would imagine as stated before any sale monies would quite rightly remain in escrow for Queeld etc until share ownership fully resolved. "
Scotty - but well done on trying to spin it.
'that' in that regard is queeld and whoever has the claim. nothing to do with EUA until the other two parties agree. queeld and eua would be in contact in order to be updated, but as that's not a court action it is relatively cheap. hence. not EUA's problem.
Nice try. try again?
Scotty : or a more contextual quote:
"It should not be assumed that there are any claims or interests by reason of which replacement certificates should not be released to Queeld and Mispare. Eurasia is neutral in that regard, and its solicitors are currently in correspondence with solicitors for Queeld and Mispare regarding the appropriate directions to be made by the Court in light of those communications."
So depending on those communications and what the court decides to direct then EUA will confirm their action in all this. Until then correspondance is "Queeld: hey when the court decides who actually owns them, then we will get in contact and confirm with you"
"EUA: yo bro that's cool speak to you later". I doubt there is any ongoing discussions - there can't be - just until the court decides who of the new claimants/queeld actually own them. Then EUA needs to agree to let Queeld solicitors release them.
Basically all that says is "we're in touch regarding outcome of the claims". Won't cost a lot, and certainly less than the case queeld will have with any other claimants.
Ah! My post sort aged well - was just was 1 day out (expected it yesterday). 2 (or more) claims!
Now I am thinking there is more to this whole thing than meets the eye. Why bother fighting on this unless it is something worth fighting more (far exceeding the cost of the legals)?
Offler - agree - whilst we at some point had some blockchain links we dont really have much links it in more recent years. It would be a rabbit out of the hat but I am not putting any faith in it.
More faith in sale now all legal cases done and dealth with - only left over court actions are final the VAT rabate and the series of extraction tax rebates with interest (at 16-20% last year or two so more than 2m pounds).
GLA
Meh I think it's all inconsequential. I was only expecting to be updated if there was a second claim. We haven't been so done and dusted. Can move on and hope that this could have been a small hold up with the sale - i.e. ownership of the shares is now sorted.
MrYFront - allegedly buys 10%. Something isn't quite right - was this just a ruse to postpone the bankruptcy case or something? or to try to suggest Queeld don't own them in the bankruptcy case? Confusing to the max. Then this Marendo thing pops up to muddy the waters as EUA then didnt know who to provide the share certs to for certain. Then EUA was saying provide indemnity and we'll give you the certs.
Is this the path that happened?
Del929 - not sure that is entirely correct:
https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/losing-control-what-the-mints-court-of-appeal-judgment-means-for-uk-sanctions
1) court of appeal basically states everything is owned by putin as he can call the shots
2) analysis of the reasoning above as flawed and unreasonable
3) UK government also supports the analysis that court of appeal was not correct
4) even so: "The High Court considered that, while PJSC National Bank Trust was 99.9% owned and controlled by a Russian public body – the Central Bank of Russia – private entities such as Litasco and Lukoil (Queeld...) were not presently owned or controlled in an equivalent manner, and there was no evidence that funds received by such private entities would be used in accordance with Putin’s wishes. While Putin arguably could have the means of placing Litasco and/or Litasco’s (Queeld...) assets under his de facto control, should he decide to do so, the Court found that this was not the present position (and so Litasco should not be treated as targeted)."
So bit of a red herring that I think. Supreme Court hasn't judged on it unless anyone can find something.
GLA
Furion - yes I do. Otherwise how do you explain the magnitude of effort the owners went through to try to hide their ownership from the Russian courts. They wanted to keep them, specifically - more than other stuff at least from that court ruling.
This is what I have been thinking for the past month or so - and also why EUA were hopeful of a sale by the end of 2023, but perhaps the court case went on a little longer than anticipated then only know so Queeld have the certificates back.
GLA
GLA