Member Info for oldspursfan

Rns out

Very gallows humour, but it is funny how the BoD have found a conclusion to the ever extending options, which pleases absolutely fkn nobody...!

By that headline I reckon it's 55 days before everyone says how it was "obvious" CS meant the 12 months until the next AGM, so start the next countdown!

Not hoping, just mostly expecting...

Toffers you really have to stop thinking how to maximise lawyer fees.

Explain why it is in anyone's interest for the claimants to win, get a share certificate to prove their ownership then immediately bankrupt the company and wipe out the value of those shares? And why a judge would willingly order such a mutually destructive course of action over a procedural dispute?

If you can't think of a plausible reason why those will happen in reality, then maybe stop shouting about it?

The Queeld case is a procedural dispute over the issue of a replacement share certificate and obtaining (or not) suitable indemnity. It is not an existential threat.

The particulars state what damages are being sought, and it is the additional costs in obtaining an acceptable level of indemnity, over and above what Q&M have spent to date but EUA have dismissed.

The judge's ruling will not include any hypothetical sale at a random date since 2018, as a) it is not being asked for, and b) it makes no sense. Why would a judge rule in Q&Ms favour, order the issue of the certificate for their shareholding, then off their own bat, bankrupt EUA to make those shares worthless??

Toffers you speak solely from the pov of maximising lawyer fees. Claim for this! Claims for that! Appeal! Appeal! The only winners there are the law firms. Please calm down, read on the lines and not what you think exists between them.

On and for the sale hopefully "this year" I would take to mean the same as placing authority: said at AGM, runs until next AGM, so July 24.

GLA

A bit meh

Would be nice if the Board declined to take any salaries until the sale concludes, if they are now doing the square root of naff all operationally. Would at least focus their minds fully on concluding this.

It's lucky for us we have so many contributors who are able to read between the lines of what is officially stated so well...!!

Did I miss an RNS where they stated they have not been able to do anything because there's a war on?

Don't remember seeing one. A lot of hindsight on this BB saying "obviously" the RNS that said "unaffected" was bull.

Just like "obviously" the next step en route to production is the "final" step before a sale, and the preceding years of advertising effort was just a waste of everyone's time.

"OSF, give it up, you're seriously beginning to make me think you are in fact Mac!"

Playing the man not the ball. Dear oh dear...

Read the preceding paragraph Toffers.

"...whatever level EUA say is acceptable" - this bit is unknown, as stated throughout the claim.

Yes that "to be assessed" bit is covered by the claim in para 85 too.

Nothing to do with hypothetical disposals, but instead the differential between the costs of indemnity the claimants obtained, and whatever level EUA say is acceptable. It really is specified, if you care to look at the lines and not always between them.

Damages amount is not specified, as what EUA want is unknown, so the cost is unknown, so too whether such level of indemnity is actually obtainable.

That to me is "End of" - not life threatening.

Ok toffers you are entitled to your views, just happy you confirmed its more your "reading between the lines" that means EUA goes bust on an adverse ruling, rather than what is stated in the particulars themselves.

GLA

Toffers I can honestly state that if that's what is in the claim.

Para 85 is the only one outlining what damages they seek. That 61(3) doesn't get mentioned. The judge won't envisage a sale situation when one isn't being claimed, and he isn't being asked to. I think you've just made that up.

In fact para 75 outlines EUA allegedly advising them to do an off-market transaction, in light of Cypriot freezing orders on Ananieva, which they would recognise. That according to the claimants constitutes a breach in para 82(5), by "seeking to pressurise the Claimants into selling their shares

in the Company off-market". Complaining about being put under pressure to sell, whilst at the same time claiming they can't, seems to me contradictory.

It also underlines the point that the judge is not being asked to consider a sale scenario as damages.

"My views"

Excellent work Del.

On point 7, while the BoD really ought to have advised the court cases were ongoing, I've read the amended particulars of claim, and seriously cannot see the Mispare/Queeld case being the existential threat Toffers has us believe.

The entire claim is concentrated on a technical breach of Articles, latest amendments being additinal evidence in their sequence of events, not impacting the damages sought.

There is no mention of either claimant wanting to sell, or evidence provided showing they intended to at any point. The damages they claim are specified, and do NOT involve a hypothetical sale on a random date over a 4+ year timeline.

As it all centres, as has been mentioned, on the level of indemnity EUA actually want, one can infer the BoD themselves can in part control the level of "damages" they may have to pay out if the judge rules against them.

Nothing yet on Logik. GLA

Del, that's another strange line...

"We acknowledge shareholder frustration regarding the duration of the sale process, however, we also note recent precedent transactions which have successfully completed despite the geopolitical situation."

That's what we should be saying to them, not them to us? We're frustrated precisely BECAUSE other transactions are completing, putting the lie to any assertion that they cannot be. I don't get how the BoD can say that using the word "however" as if we need telling - it doesn't make sense.

B1ll one could argue that decisions to stockpile and not send to local refinery, and get the MT DFS approved but not activate the funding mechanism to start mining it, could point to somebody waiting in the wings to take it over.

...had they not gone on to say they are stockpiling to get a better raw material price, and there is low visibility on the sale front.

I've slept on it and I'm still treating "low visibility" as meaning "not anytime soon boyo"

I think it's highly possible that the sanctions environment is playing a part. What's strange to me is why they didn't just say this? Why phrase it like its all down to the BoD deciding not to sell like its part of a master plan?

S12345 - for EUA who have said there is currently low visibility of a conclusion in their pursuit of a possible sale, getting the DFS out there is exactly what I would want them to do, to drum up interest and entice investors, and yes, other potential suitors.

This is (or was once) their flagship asset, publicise it FFS!

It would seem there isn't much else happening Nathan.

I'm struggling to see any other near term news items, which would be fine if a deal was close but the BoD have now said "low visibility" on that front. Not sure exactly what that means, but sounds to me like don't expect anything soon.

I think the rather gaping hole in your theory Toffers is that:

> if GT were being forced to resign their auditing services as a result of sanctions, and

> if EUA therefore had to find another company willing to provide these services, and

> if as a result of having to search for new auditors, it put the filing of accounts by the 30 June at risk...

...that would have to be announced. They can't keep it quiet or keep GT named as their current auditors, which they still do.

That is what petroneft did - announce their situation a few weeks back, and begin the suspension notice yesterday by referencing this earlier statement.

EUA have done none of this, so far. If they do announce this situation, then there will be questions to answer, but right now it's only you thinking it and treating it as fact.

They could, but only if the suspension isn't accounts related.

The central purpose of the AGM is to receive and consider the accounts/ confirm auditor arrangements, so in this instance, they won't call an AGM until the accounts are published, by which time suspension will be lifted anyway.