Member Info for oldspursfan

*emption, not emotion. Too much of that already!,

No expert, but the special resolution references section 571 of the Companies Act, which relates to the ability of directors to override what is termed existing shareholder pre-emotion rights, or effectively the right of first refusal to any new shares being issued.

That it goes onto talk about rights issue kind of contradicts it to my mind, but I believe it is granting the BoD authority to place shares or raise equity funding to the value they need, both how they want, and with who they want.

Good research Ethio. Not sure it is what is happening, as the acquirer needs to already hold a substantial stake, but always good to air it as it gets everyone thinking!

My thought earlier was the option for a RI between now and the next AGM, may be to cover success fees if the chosen/recommended route is not a sale, but another structure. One that may not get all the cash in upfront, but still demands success related payments? It’s the only thing I can think of that may explain a potential need for cash over and above the bank balance in the next few months.

More likely it’s something else again...

NttG that takes me to a question I asked before but think got lost - if an outright sale of an asset or the company happens, then there will be sale proceeds to deduct from. If it's a different "strategic option" e.g JV or series thereof, then:
> does that qualify as a "successful" FSP outcome warranting payment to UBS, DLA, CITIC and the like? If not, I don't think they would be very happy at having zero fees due!
> if it does and fees become payable then how/out of what?

Just a thought, something that makes a bit more sense to me than "strengthening negotiations" with a buyer who I cannot see would care much if we have an option for RI or not.

Opto - this resolution expires at the next AGM (it states it), where it will likely be re-requested, but this is only until the AGM is called.

Unless, thought just occurred...

Success fee payment? We have several companies on a success fee basis that EUA would need to meet - might they need paying in the next four months??

Apparently so opto, though admit I'm not really seeing how $6m in the bank, income from WK, and a two year exclusive option on additional mines really points to the BoD needing this ability to call a RI in the next four months.

MacMan - it's wasn't unresolved, it was not passed and not actually needed. I wouldn't have thought any unused facility would transfer to new owners if EUA were bought out, and any individual asset sale would result in additional capital.

So let's hope this does what is needed, though I just don't see how/ what exactly this adds, and the FSP gets resolved before the next AGM.

Personal preference would be some kind of FSP or strategy update before the EGM.

As a shareholder I'm naturally averse to giving carte blanche to BoDs for them to issue shares like confetti unless there is a clear strategy to follow. Even questions like why resurrect this now, as opposed to re-inserting it into the next AGM? Why give yourselves only 4 months timeframe to utilise it if passed (end of next AGM c.Sept time is the validity cutoff)? Why limit yourselves to issuing via a rights issue, when being in an FSP represents a closed period, so would impact on director dealings?

Perhaps more importantly, what's the top priority now - sell the company, or expand the company, as whilst you can say they are running concurrently right now, it is not feasible for any real length of time?

Not really expecting anything like that, but would be my preference.

Aubrey 23:48
"Most important para

The Directors are confident that the ability to allot securities and demonstrate a capacity to develop the Kola PGM and battery metals district independently of other strategic options available to the Company benefits the Company and its Shareholders by improving Eurasia's negotiating position.

Independent of ...."

How can you pick up on the "most important para" and miss the key words in it?

"Demonstrate a capacity to develop..."

As opposed to just putting "to develop" - so show you can, not necessarily do

Billions 23:01
"My personal view, it would be rude and make the russian state unhappy if they had granted a jv option to eua and they flip it over in weeks to another party. I dont see that."

Pretty sure Rosgeo would have been aware EUA are in an FSP so may end up being sold to another company

And it didn't seem to bother them...

Admit I did think "Eurasia Japan?? - WTF?""

We have had several companies involved for many months engaged on a "success fee" basis.

For this reason I think reports of the FSP's demise may be somewhat premature. The only problem being how you now value EUA when they appear to be absolutely central to the strategic development of a PGM district "to rival Bushveld"

Central, now, not just some little explorer wjo happen to have licenses to mine some land with flavour of the month metals.

What value that?

Ha! Sorry WK is in the Urals. I did actually know that... :P

Crabby if you noticed a little line in the EGM RNS:

"The Company acknowledges the ESG focus adopted by its JV partner Rosgeo and its in-depth knowledge, experience, expertise and network of contacts, that make Rosgeo an ideal partner for the development of the Kola PGM district."

They're on our land, but only coz we let 'em! Little old EUA now Lords of the Manor!

I'm not sure asset sales of MT and WK in isolation will happen. The way its worded it's all about developing the Kola district, of which MT and WK are part.

It sounds like EUA are now part of something a lot more strategic and it's not just about specific licenses. EUA are, to me, the conduit through existing licenses and first mover advantage, for everyone interested in the region.

bbtablet every share you own is of nominal value 0.1p - it says it Euarsia Mining Ordinary 0.1p

They will be issued over the course of the authority period as 0.1p shares, and raise whatever the market value is - if it's all issued at 265 times nominal value, they raise 265 times £250k.

Please guys Google "Nominal Share Value" - takes 2 seconds and clears this bit up!

TIger it would make no difference if the market value of an EUA share was 26p or 2.6p or 0.26p - it's still authority to allot 250m shares as the nominal value is just that, nominal. I do feel that the Russian State may have got involved given the level of interest in the region and EUA's licenses and first mover advantage. So a consortium for the region is set up made up of interested parties, EUA licenses are sold to the consortium for fair recompense. Thats how I see this unfolding.

UK Takeover Panel wouldn't give a sheet

Well this does lend more credence to a consortium buyout of EUA's licenses and first mover advantage in the region. I cannot see much other outcome now, especially as we have DLA Piper and UBS on "success fee" - so what else would success look like??

I have wondered why Rosgeo would get tied up in a JV with an explorer who is about to be sold. Perhaps given the international interest, this route ups the asking price and the Russian State therefore has more to gain?

It's allotting shares with a nominal value of £250k, so up to 250m shares given 0.1p nominal value yes?

What exactly are you doing EUA...? Intriguing...