We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Looking back at the September 24th 2009 High Court judgment in Harare, a seven-point order was handed down to the relevant parties involved.
https://www.veritaszim.net/node/324
One of those orders (3) was for the transfer of this elusive 129,400 carat parcel from MMCZ back to the ACR subsidiaries, which I'm assuming is now currently in the process of being finalised? Although I havnt actually seen any official court documentation to confirm this. If anybody has that link, it would be much appreciated.
It was also ordered (4) that MMCZ return to ACR subsidiaries, all diamonds acquired from ACR claims area, using the register kept by MMCZ in compliance with the Kimberly Process Certification scheme.
Does anybody have a link to this register?
Andrew cranswick (ACR CEO at the time) estimated that through MMCZ and all other illegal mining taking place, that US$1B worth of diamonds had been removed from the ACR claims. This makes the register that was held by MMCZ potentially far more valuable then the 129,400 carots.......whats happened to the diamonds refered to in order 4?
The National Trade Union Bloc informs that the BIHOR Court has declared the strike initiated by the Mine Băița Trade Union, a trade union affiliated to the Romanian Trade Union Federation, a member of the BNS, as legal. This after, as a result of the protest organized by the miners, the employer VAST BAIȚA PLAI SA requested the court to declare the stoppage of work illegal, summoning the union and its president to the court in its own name - this representing one of the many pressures that the employer constantly affects the union and its representatives. However, the Bihor Court took into account the defenses formulated by the trade union and ruled by rejecting "as unfounded the request for summons made by the plaintiff VAST BĂIŢA PLAI SA in opposition to the defendant SINDICATUL MINA BĂIŢA, as a representative of the employees from the Băiţa Plai workplace, having as its object an action to establish the illegality of the strike. Rejects as unfounded the accessory claim with the object of awarding court costs." (excerpt from the brief solution). The National Syndical Bloc draws attention to the fact that further pressure may arise on the trade union organization and on the employees considering that the employer still records debits for the payment of salary rights, and the dialogue between the management of the company and the employees is non-existent. The employees do not know when their outstanding salary rights will be paid and what the future of the mine will be. In this regard, we appeal to the state institutions to verify the association between the Romanian state and VAST BAITA PLAI SA considering the questionable behavior towards the employees implicitly towards the Romanian state. We trust and thank the public authorities in this way for the conduct they show in order to resolve the social tensions at the Baița Mine. At the same time, we express our full willingness to dialogue with the employer in order to identify fair, legal and balanced solutions
https://bns.ro/media-noutati/comunicate-de-presa/comunicat-de-presa-greva-de-la-mina-baita-legala-justitia-de-partea-salariatilor
https://portal-justitie.ro/dosar/?dosar=3439/111/2023&institutie=TribunalulBIHOR
https://portal-justitie.ro/dosar/?dosar=31/100/2023&institutie=TribunalulMARAMURES
Continued...
"The court shall draw the receiver's attention to the provisions of Article 252 of Law no. 31/1990, republished, and shall order the formalities concerning the entry in the commercial register of its permanent representatives to be completed. Requests the liquidator to submit monthly reports to the court file in accordance with Article 59(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. 1 of Emergency Ordinance No 91/2013. Requests the insolvency administrator/liquidator to ensure that the notifications sent to creditors include a request for communication of the statements of claims, supporting documents and stamp duty: (i) one copy shall be sent both in scriptural format (paper) to the registry of the VII Civil Division of the Court of Bucharest and in electronic format (PDF documents of maximum 4 MB each) to the e-mail address of the VII Civil Division of the Court of Bucharest (trb-insolventa@just.ro); (ii) the copy to the insolvency practitioner shall be sent to the electronic mail address to be indicated by the insolvency practitioner in the notice. Set the date for the continuation of the proceedings at 09.00 a.m. on 13.12.2022. Enforceable. With right of appeal within 7 days from the communication of the decision by publication in the Insolvency Proceedings Bulletin, to be filed with the Bucharest Court, Civil Section VII. Pronounced by making the decision available to the parties through the court registry."
https://portal-justitie.ro/dosar/?dosar=11450/3/2022&institutie=TribunalulBUCURESTI
Continued...
"Appoints the provisional receiver, at the request of the creditor VAIDACO MINERIT LOGISTIC SRL, CII BOICIUC CIPRIAN BOGDAN with a remuneration of 4000 lei from the debtor's assets, who will carry out the duties provided for in art. 58 of Law no. 85/2014. Pursuant to art. 71 para. 2 of Law no. 85/2014, orders the insolvency administrator to send a notification, in accordance with Art. 99 para. 3 of the law, regarding the opening of general proceedings against the debtor, to all creditors mentioned in the list submitted by the debtor pursuant to Art. 67 para. 1 lit. c), to the debtor and to the trade register office or, as the case may be, to the register of agricultural companies or to the register of associations and foundations in which the debtor is registered, in order to make the entry, to the courts in whose jurisdiction the registered office declared in the trade register is located, and to all the banks where the debtor has opened accounts, with a view to applying the provisions of Article 75 of Law no. 85 /2014. Instructs the insolvency administrator to carry out an inventory of the debtor's assets within 60 days from the date of this judgment and to draw up and submit to the court file, within 20 days from the date of appointment, the report referred to in Article 92(1)(a) of the Act. 1 of Law no. 85/2014 and, within 40 days of appointment, the report referred to in Article 97 of the same law. Pursuant to Article 39 of Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings, order the debtor to open an account with a bank from which the expenses related to the proceedings will be borne, within 2 days from the notification of the opening of the proceedings; in case of failure to do so, the account will be opened by the receiver. Any cash on hand will be kept in a special bank deposit account."
File Number : 11450/3/2022
Registration Date : 03.05.2022
Creditor : Vaidaco Minerit Logistic SRL ++
Debtor : Sinarom Mining Group SRL
"Rejects the plea of lack of interest raised by the debtor as unfounded. Admit the claim brought by the creditor VAIDACO MINERIT LOGISTIC SRL against the debtor SINAROM MINIG GROUP SRL Pursuant to Article 72(2) of the EC Treaty 6 of Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings, open general insolvency proceedings against the debtor SINAROM MINIG GROUP SRL. If the debtor does not file, within 10 days of the delivery of this judgment, a declaration of its intention to reorganize, pursuant to Article 85 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 74 and Art. 67 para. 1 lit. g of Law no. 85/2014, the right of administration - consisting of the right to conduct its business, to administer its assets and to dispose of them - shall be automatically withdrawn, in which case the full management of the debtor's business shall be the responsibility of the receiver. Instructs all the banks with which the debtor has accounts available not to dispose of them without an order of the official receiver or the insolvency administrator, the obligation to notify the banks being incumbent on the insolvency administrator if the right of administration is automatically withdrawn. Orders the debtor to lodge the documents and information referred to in Article 67(1)(b) and (c) with the court within 10 days of delivery of this judgment. If the debtor fails to submit the documents and information referred to above, the provisions of Article 82 para. 2 and Art. 169 para. 1 letter d of Law no. 85/2014. Set the following deadlines: a) deadline for the registration of the application for the admission of claims on the debtor's assets - 21.10.2022; b) deadline for the verification of claims, for the preparation and publication in the Insolvency Proceedings Bulletin of the preliminary list of claims - 10.11.2022; c) deadline for the finalization of the list of claims - 05.12.2022; d) date of the first meeting of the general meeting of creditors - 15.11.2022."
It looks as though the companies subsidiary has another creditor looking for repayment via the Courts again.
File Number : 21216/299/2022
Registration Date : 13.05.2022
Creditor : Power Net Consulting SRL
Debitor : Vast Baita Plai SA
https://portal-justitie.ro/dosar/?dosar=21216/299/2022&institutie=JudecatoriaSECTORUL1BUCURESTI
Another case I noticed was related to the enviromental incident at Baita Plai in early 2022??.......If I remember correctly, toxic waste material somehow found it's way into the local river......
Without looking into the case fully, I'm under the impression that Vast Baita Plai SA have claimed that the waste material that entered the river was a result of heavy rainfall......as opposed to (I guess) any failure on the companies part??. I'm under this impression because the court was seeking confirmation from the National Meteorological Administration of heavy rainfall for the period in question.
Anyway.....from the following (or latest) hearing.
File Number : 82/187/2022
Registration Date: 14.01.2022
"Dismisses as unfounded the complaint lodged by the applicant VAST BAI?A PLAI S.A., against the Government of Romania, Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - BIHOR JUDETEAN COMMISSION. Maintains the report series GNM no. 14476 of 23.12.2021 as legally and duly drawn up. Without costs. With right of appeal within 30 days of communication, to be filed at the Beiu? Court of Appeal. Pronounced on 19.10.2022 by making the solution available to the parties through the court registry"
https://portal-justitie.ro/dosar/?dosar=82/187/2022&institutie=JudecatoriaBEIUS
Relating to the Strikes
Admit in part the claim brought by the plaintiff VAST BAI?A PLAI SA against the defendants - the employees of the Bai?a Plai Work Point represented by BOTA TRAIAN, DRAGOSEL NICOLAE and PANTEA VASILE. Declare the illegality of the strike started on 19.09.2022 at the Bai?a Plai Work Point. Dismisses as devoid of purpose the head of claim seeking an order that the defendants immediately cease the strike. With right of appeal within 10 days of communication, to be filed with the Bihor Tribunal. Pronounced by making the decision available to the parties by the court registry today, 23.09.2022.
https://portal-justitie.ro/dosar/?dosar=3101/111/2022&institutie=TribunalulBIHOR
It appears to me that this raise of £2.375M (gross) will only cover the company till the end of 2022, given the work it has to do.
The company plans to "Expand" its exploration activities on the Red Setter asset, the Wishbone II asset, and it also mentioned the Cottesloe asset.
Does this suggest the start of Phase2 drilling, and some additional work on Wishbone II ??........because the company didn't once mentioned phase2 ?
The companies initial intention was to drill a few holes on the high priority targets first.........the use of the word "expansion" in the RNS, without mentioning Phase II, makes me think that the company may not have found what they were hoping for, and hence, the expansion of Phase1 ?.
Regardless, how much exploration can actually be done with £2.375M (gross) when it's divided between three of the assets?
For this reason, I beleive the company will raise again in December, or January, in order to fully fund it's operations and exploration activities for 2023.
Hi 1plus1
Peter Romeo Gianni was just a guess. I've not been able to find the appointed Director stated anywhere.
Are you sure it's Barrett Kosh?.....Every search I make, keeps pointing to one of Wishbone Golds old subsidiaries named Black swan FZE, where Barrett Kosh is the CEO?
I'll keep looking.
Thanks
Does anybody happen to know the name of the Director (or member) of the companies Western Australian subsidiary, Wishbone Gold WA Pty Ltd?
The Director (or Member) according to the ASIC rules for foreign companies, must be a resident of Australia.
I've been looking into a statement made in the companies final results (Section 25: Contingent Liability) regarding Native Title over the land.........land that all assets of the subsidiary sit on.
The Martu Peoples, represented by the
Jamukurnu Yapalikurnu Aboriginal Corporation (formerly Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation) are the traditional owners of the land, and have Exclusive Native Title over it (known as the Martu Native Title Determination).
Exclusive Native Title - The right to possess, occupy and use an area to the exclusion of all others.
The Martu appear to have an extremely powerful position over the company here?
I understand that the company has claimed it has signed a Land Access Agreement with the former WDLAC, however, I can't find that agreement anywhere on the NNTT register.....
The NNTT, or National Native Title Tribunal, are the mediators of negotiation, between the representatives of Indigenous peoples, and the outside world effectively.
In my search, I found that our Vendor Peter Romeo Gianni is the individual thats in negotiation with the Martu people (via NNTT) for all Wishbone Gold WA Pty Ltd assets.
E45/5297
http://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/FutureActs/Pages/FA_details.aspx?NNTT_Fileno=WO2019/0217
E45/5408
http://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/FutureActs/Pages/FA_details.aspx?NNTT_Fileno=WO2019/0224
E45/5409
http://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/FutureActs/Pages/FA_details.aspx?NNTT_Fileno=WO2019/0225
So is Peter Romeo Gianni the Director and Member of Wishbone Gold WA Pty Ltd?
I'd like to hope it isnt the case, given that he was issued both shares and warrants in the company, and could therefore unfairly benefit from certain information before the rest of the market hears of it.......
Another bit of information I found on the NNTT website could be another acquisition for the company??
E45/5957
http://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/FutureActs/Pages/FA_details.aspx?NNTT_Fileno=WO2022/0886
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Martu Native Title Determination (Details and map)
http://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/NativeTitleRegisters/Pages/NNTR_details.aspx?NNTT_Fileno=WCD2002/002
The Mabo vs Queensland (Decision)
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html
Martu vs WA State (Decision)
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1208.html
Hi rsproson
All un-exercised warrants mentioned in my original post are accurate.
Could you please point me to any of the exercise notices issued by the company that would prove my post wrong, and correct my research.
Thanks
Hi UPshunt
"My understanding is that warrants can be bought and sold, so how can anyone know who holds any or not?"
In this particular case, we know the warrant holder can only be one of three Vendors....
David Lenigas
Peter Romeo Gianni
Geonomics Australia Pty Ltd
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/WSBN/acquisition-of-option-in-havierontelfer-region-fh0u2qhi2fkrwku.html
Thanks
Hi SeagullsFan
"Asking questions is fine - but having the ability to see the other side would stop the accusations of being a re-ramper."
I was being accused of de-ramping from the moment I asked my original questions, so the "ability to see the other side" has nothing to do with it.......The fact that I asked the questions was the problem.
Thanks
Hi 1plus1
Thanks for your response.
Although it's difficult to tell whether it applies here or not, I completely agree with your argument regarding the potential benefits of NOT exercising the warrants at the best possible price, and as a result, that particular comment of mine was incorrect.
I apologise for the delayed response - Apparently I spend too much time on the computer??
Also, I noticed in your latest post, you noted the expiry date for these warrants, as exercisable "up to 4 October 2022". However, the warrants are only exercisable from the admission date of the acquisition shares, and therefore, I beleive the expiry date is actually the 17th November 2022 ?
"The Acquisition Warrants will be exercisable for a period of 24 months from admission of the Acquisition Shares"
Thanks again.
Hi Reggie
I'm not sure it is "clear as day" if I'm being confused for a deramper.
I actually really like Wishbone Gold. I think the company has acquired some really interesting assets.
I genuinely hope that phase1 drilling at Red Setter is a complete success, that way I know my time hasn't been wasted watching this company.
I won't be investing throughout any of the phase1 drilling myself........take that as you will.
Regardless, good luck with your investment.
Thanks
Traindriver13
"Pretty easy decision, if you don't like the fact that David Lenigas is involved around this company. Go away!"
Who said I had a problem with David Lenigas?........his relatively small number of unexercised warrants, could still result in a relatively big deposit ??
Hi 1plus1
Just to clear up........ At no point was I implying "underhand dealings". The terms of the warrants are clear, and stated in the RNS.
I don't know too much on David Lenigas personally, but what I do know from looking into the warrants, is that.....
- David Lenigas is one the three vendors.
- 1/3 of Warrants are yet to be exercised.
- The warrants expire in three months.
Whoever it is, VendorX will inevitably want the price as high as possible at the point of exercise......who wouldn't?
Now, given that there is only three months remaining, VendorX needs to calculate the best point in which to exercise those warrants.........The problem I see, is that VendorX can't know, or guarantee the outcome of the remaining cores.
Would it therefore be a gamble for VendorX to stick around and wait for what could be bad news? Or would VendorX be wise to exercise his warrants whilst the share price is up?....Thursday for example.
From my perspective, Thururday would have made a perfectly safe exercise date for VendorX, which is why I'm suspicious of the update (the day before) from Wacky1, of a certain tweet from one of our Vendors.
I understand your veiw, but I'm still convinced myself.......not that any of this really matters, it was just an observation I made whilst looking through the warrants.
Thanks.
Hi Bridgedogg1
Thankyou. I spent some time the other night organising the companies outstanding warrants in order to track them in future. I only uploaded the post because I thought it may come in useful to someone else??