The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
PART 4 OF 8
THE PICIORUL ZIMBRULUI LICENCE AREA
The Piciorul Zimbrului licence area has possibly been the most difficult to locate for a few reasons. 1) The way in which it's name is used in various ways to describe numerous other places and areas. 2) where mountains or valleys for example have multiple names (Hungarian, German etc). 3) Translation issues. All of which, contributing to the many dead ends I've found myself stuck at, in my search for the licence area.
Sadly, where no information from the company has been provided in order to locate the licence area accurately, I've had to resort to using hiking guides and known mountain bike routes instead (all in romanian of course).
Without describing the entire journey, I will describe only the relevant part. For this, we can use the same image as we used before, which I've left again below.
(Click view image - on the 4th image)
https://www.avenzamaps.com/maps/198211/muntii-gutai-lapus-si-tibles-gutin-lapos-cibles-hegy
Beginning our short journey at the peak of the Tibles mountain (Vf Tibles) head off South-West along the Gorgan ridge, passing over Gorgan peak (Vf Gorgan) following the ridge as it bends West towards the peak of Ousor (Vf Ousor). At this point, all the guides mention descending a 'zig-zagged' path down the North-western face of the ridge (between Vf Gorgan and Vf Ousor) into the Zimbrului Valley (V. Zimbrului) towards the Rau Spring (Izv Rau) which is located at foot of the Zimbrului Valley (Piciorul Zimbrului).
The word 'Piciorul' means foot in romanian, so if your stood at the bottom of the Zimbrului Valley, then it would seem logical to say that you were stood at Piciorul Zimbrului........I can't help but smile to myself at how obvious this may actually have been?
There was two things that stood out to me in every single guide I viewed, that being, the description of their descent to Piciorul Zimbrului. They all reference having to wade through a sea of juniper bushes (1.5m high) before entering a dense Alpine forest.
The mention of having to wade through a 'sea of Juniper' bushes stood out to me because the word 'Juniper' was a result I kept receiving (from multiple translators) when I entered the word 'Zimbrului', which seemed like a very odd coincidence to me. The other common result (on other translators) was 'European Bison'.
The second thing that stood out to me was the, entering of a 'Dense Alpine forest' before meeting the Izvorul Rau at The foot of the Zimbrului Valley (Piciorul Zimbrului). Some guides mentioned 'Spruce Forest' as opposed to Alpine Forest.
I'm no tree expert (as you will see) but when I entered either 'Alpine' or 'Spruce' into google images, both showed results of Christmas tree shaped, evergreenish type trees, very similar to the trees shown in the image below. This image was one of three images released by the company to show that surface drilling had commenced on the Zagra licences.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D
PART 3 OF 8
In the image above, you will notice the dashed red line coming from the top of the image, passing through the Tibles peak, and leaving the image to the left. This line represents the boundary between the counties of Bistri?a-Nasaud (below, and to the right of the line) and Maramure? (North-west of the line).
Given that Magura Neagra (of the Tibles study area) lies below the line, we know that it is located in the county of Bistri?a-Nasaud, matching that stated by the company.
The company also said that the Magura Neagra licence area was "proximal to the Manaila Mine". A point that should be made here, is the use of the word 'proximal' which in geological terms (from the dictionary) means:
"relating to or denoting an area close to a centre of a geological process such as sedimentation or volcanism"
This seems to match the characteristics of the ?ible? study area, given that the mountains Arcer, ?ible? and Bran all belong to an eruptive chain themselves.
The location also 'ticks the box' when taking into consideration the companies comment that the Magura Neagra licence area is located "near the town of Zagra-Telciu". At a distance of only 20km from Telcui, I think it certainly meets the definition of "near".
The company also said that the Magura Neagra licence area lies "In the valley tributaries of the Tibles mountains", which it clearly does.
The company has also previously mentioned an adit on the Magura Neagra licence area.
"disseminated sulphide mineralisation which was intersected in an underground drive accessed by means of a surface adit (Gallery 47)".
When searching Google for the term 'Gallery 47' or any variation of it, I have never managed to find any information related to the Magura Neagra licence area, even when associated words are included, it seems to come up blank.
However, when I searched the Mindat website with the term '?ible? deposit', I happened to notice that the three markers shown on the map, which all make up the ?ible? deposit (including the Arcer Adit) all lie at a latitude of 47 degrees North.
This would explain the lack of results on Google, as there is no Adit named 'Gallery 47', in which case, the term 'Gallery 47' could simply be a creation of the company, to avoid naming the Arcer Adit, and in doing so, avoid having to reveal the exact location of the licence area.
Furthermore, the Deposit description also sounds strangely similar to our licence area too.
https://www.mindat.org/loc-249324.html
So, Is this the location of our Magura Neagra licence area..........possibly, everything seems to point to this being the location, and it also seems far more likely than the option in the Bârgau-rodna study area.
PART 2 OF 8
In the acquisition announcement (dated 22.12.2016) it states that the Magura Neagra licence area is located in the county of Bistri?a-Nasaud. This matches the county from which the sample was taken, which 'ticks the box'
The announcement also says that the licence area is "proximal to the Manaila Mine" (47km away). The small neighbouring town of Ivaneasa is approximately 60km from the Manaila Mine, and could therefore still lie within the licence area, possibly allowing the next box to be ticked.
Although very loose, the announcement also mentions that the Magura Neagra licence area is located "near the town of Zagra-Telciu". This box being ticked really depends on your definition of what "near" means. The town of Ivaneasa is located approximately 35km East of Telciu.
However, In my opinion, I think this location is questionable due to the fact that in the same announcement the company also states that the Magura Neagra licence area lies "In the valley tributaries of the Tibles mountains", which is 60km away from Ivaneasa, making it highly unlikely to be our licence area.
This last comment from the company takes me to the next location, and also the next study area in the document - The Tibles - represented by the smaller dashed box (Image1). A more detailed image of the Tibles study area is shown below.
http://www.geologicacarpathica.com/data/articles/476/476003.png
The research into the Tibles study area mentions another location with the name Magura Neagra, which can be seen using the link below. This image shows all the mountains and valleys that make up the Tibles mountains.
(Click view image - on the 4th image)
https://www.avenzamaps.com/maps/198211/muntii-gutai-lapus-si-tibles-gutin-lapos-cibles-hegyseg
Magura Neagra, with its peak at 1593m can be found by following the chain of mountains (Arcer-Tibles-Bran) in a south easterly direction, from the center of the map. To help you navigate around the Tibles mountains, I have translated a few words which should help with some of the names and abbreviations.
Mun?ii - Mountains
Dealul - Hill
Izvorul - Spring
Valea - Valley
Râul - River
Vârf - Peak
Culmea - Ridge
So......could this be the possible location of the Magura Neagra licence area?
PART 1 OF 8
From the moment the company first announced that it had acquired two new prospecting licences for both Magura Neagra and Piciorul Zimbrului, Ive had this feeling that something isn't quite right about them.
Why were we not given any of the licence details, or issuance numbers when the acquisition was announced......or since?
This information would have given shareholders the exact location of the licence areas, the coordinates informing of the perimeter boundaries, and also the owner of both the licences. These are just some of the 'unknowns' that have caused me much frustration.
There is however two locations I've found that seem far more promising, but they also create a few question marks too.
THE MAGURA NEAGRA LICENCE AREA
A couple of years ago I found a document that was published in 2009 on the Geologica Carpathica website. The document was related to some studies that were conducted in the Eastern Carpathians, in order to understand the age of the rocks, and ultimately the evolution of the 'subvolcanic zone'.
In the image below of the study area, the solid black marks represent outcrop areas of a main intrusive body. The outcrops of importance (in this case) are those contained within the dashed boxes for both the Tibles and the Bârgau-Rodna areas.
http://www.geologicacarpathica.com/data/articles/476/476002.png
I'll begin with the Bârgau-Rodna study area.
The image below shows the Bârgau-Rodna study area in greater detail, with the intrusive bodies now represented as red marks with white crosses. The image also shows the locations where rock samples were collected for the study, shown as BR(x). Take note of sample BR15.
http://www.geologicacarpathica.com/data/articles/476/476005.png
The sample BR15 was taken from the intrusive body that makes up a mountain named Magura Neagra, located next to the small village of Ivaneasa, just south of Ilva Mare.
For the benefit of orientation, the image below of the county of Bistri?a-Nasaud clearly shows all the relevant places mentioned above (on the right, wedged between the Rodnei and Calimani Mountains).
http://www.inbistrita.ro/harta/harta_turistica_bistrita_nasaud.jpg
Could this be the possible location of the Magura Neagra licence area?
Pecten11
"However, did AP (or was it someone of the forum?) say that Formin had built/engineered the new narrow exploration rig? If so, surely they wouldn't have done that if there was still an issue re outstanding debt?"
I've not heard this information, or at least I'm not aware of it. If this were to be the case, then it would suggest that the outstanding balance owed to Formin SA was satisfied on, or within 10 days of the 15.09.2020 deadline (II1a). In which case, the company has either been waiting for 13 months for the results to arrive, or Vast have been withholding the drilling data for all that time?
PART 5 OF 5 (After Thoughts)
According to the terms of the new 'Payment Agreement' (I1b) African Consolidated Resources SRL (ACR) were due to repay their final installment of 300,000 lei by 15.09.2020. This full and final payment should have allowed for the release of all data regarding our 4000m surface drilling campaign on both the Zagra licences.
Given that no drill results have yet been published by the company, it would suggest that Formin SA never received that final payment. It might have been the case that only some of the initial (principle) installments were satisfied by ACR, or none of them at all. Either way, they can all be treated as a default (II2).
In the event of default, Formin SA has the right to invoke term (II2) obligating ACR to repay the entire debt immediately (including any costs and penalties etc). If this is the case, and ACR were forced to repay the debt in full, ACR would have also effectively satisfied all the terms of the agreement by default, and should therefore now be entitled to all the drilling data, in which case........where are the drill results?
Either
a) Formin SA did not invoke the term (II2).
b) ACR were forced to repay in full, and Vast are now withholding the results.
c) ACR satisfied all installments on time, and Vast are now withholding the results.
This can be simplified further to either, Formin SA never invoked the term, or Vast are withholding the results?
Question is, although Formin SA would probably rather maintain an "amicable" relationship with ACR, would they have been willing to further extend the terms of the 'Payment Agreement' again, beyond that of 15.09.2020, by not invoking the term, and in full knowledge of ACR's 'default' history?
Another comment adding confusion to the story was made five weeks after the Formin SA deadline ended. In the companies Final results (29.10.2020) it states that the company is "currently awaiting test results in order to apply for an Exploration Licence." Implying that Formin SA did recieve their full and final payment..........yet 13 months later, still no results. Was the comment a lie, or are the results being withheld from us?.
Looking at this final payment to Formin SA from another angle. On the 7th of September 2020 the company informed shareholders of the incident on the Rail Bridge, this was followed 3 days later by a placing to raise £1,683,000. Why, if ACR were due to repay Formin on the 15th of September, did the company not raise enough to cover this payment? Or did they, and just never mentioned it?
Now that shareholders know the reason we've been waiting for these results, I think it's time Andrew Prelea informs us of the rest of the story........where are those drill results too?
PART 4 OF 5 (The Case : Continued)
IV. The Agreement shall be legal, valid and binding on the Parties, in accordance with its terms, from the moment of its signature. Individuals signing this Agreement for and on behalf of the Parties declare that they are fully authorized to do so and that their signature validly binds the Parties. This Agreement represents the free will of the Contracting Parties and is signed by them with full understanding of the legal nature and extent of the obligations assumed, the Debtor accepting that this deed constitutes express acknowledgement of debt to the Creditor. Drawn up in 3 original copies today, 25.05.2020, one for each party and one copy to be deposited at the Caras Severin Court in File no.785/115/2020. FORMIN SA, AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES SRL, By General Manager By Administrator s.s. indescifr. s.s. indescifr." Without costs. With the right to appeal within 30 days of notification, to be lodged with the Court of Caras-Severin. Delivered in open court today, 29.05.2020.
https://portal-justitie.ro/dosar/?dosar=785/115/2020&institutie=TribunalulCARASSEVERIN
PART 3 OF 5 (The Case : Continued)
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
I. Object of the Payment Agreement
1. The Debtor irrevocably undertakes to pay the debts as follows:
a) full payment of the outstanding balance, in the amount of 852,678.48 lei, representing the balance of payment of Tax Invoices no. CSVEX20190002/16.01.2019 and no. CSVEX 1030/05.03.2019, as follows:
the amount of 200.000 lei on 25.05.2020
the amount of 200.000 lei until 15.06.2020
the amount of 200.000 lei until 15.07.2020
the amount of 252.678,48 lei until 15.08.2020
b) until 15.09.2020 the payment of the amount of 300.000 lei by way of late payment penalties, which amount was negotiated and agreed by both Parties at the time of signing the Agreement.
2. The Creditor declares that, in the event that the Debtor fully complies with its obligations under this Agreement, it does not have and will not have any further claims against the Debtor under or in connection with the aforementioned Contracts.
II. Cases of fault
1. The following shall constitute cases of fault of the Debtor
a) the Debtor is more than 10 calendar days late in payment
b) insolvency proceedings have been opened against the Debtor
2. In the event of a case of fault, the Debtor shall be required to pay the debt in full immediately, upon simple notification of the Creditor.
In the event of an event of default, the Creditor may automatically terminate the Payment Agreement without further notice of default, without any other prior formality, and without the intervention of the courts, and the Debtor shall be obliged to pay the entire debt, including any penalties for late payment calculated to the day, as provided for in the contract, court costs and any other expenses incurred in the recovery of outstanding debts.
III. This Payment Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with Romanian law. All disputes arising out of or in connection herewith which cannot be settled amicably shall be settled by the competent courts at the Creditor's place of business.
PART 2 OF 5 (The Case)
Case Number - 785/115/2020
Tribunalul - Caras Severin County
Registration Date - 27.04.2020
Case Object - Payment Order
Creditor - Formin SA
Debitor - African Consolidated Resources
Date of Judgment - 29.05.2020
Confirms the transaction between the creditor Formin SA and the debtor African Consolidated Resources SRL, with the following content: "PAYMENT AGREEMENT Concluded between: FORMIN S.A., Romanian legal entity, with registered office in ..., represented by General Manager Matei Flavius, as Creditor, AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES SRL, Romanian legal entity, with registered office in ..., legally represented by Administrator Andrew Prelea, as Debtor.
PREAMBLE
Considering the contractual relationship between the Parties based on the Geological Works Contracts no. 49 and 50/14.12.2016,
Considering that the invoices no. CSVEX20190002/16.01.2019 (in the amount of 939.402,87 lei) and no. CSVEX 1030/05.03. 2019 (amounting to 750.751,88 lei), issued on the basis of the Service Contracts, communicated and accepted for payment, have not been paid in full, leaving a balance of 852.678,48 lei,
Considering that in accordance with the provisions of art.5 .6. of the Contract, late payment penalties are 0.5% per day of delay calculated on the unpaid amount, due 15 days after issue of the invoice, in accordance with Art.5.1. and 5.5 of the Contract,
Considering the existence of File no.785 /115/2020 pending before the Court of Caras Severin, with deadline on 29.05.2020 and the desire of the Parties to settle amicably the dispute arising from the non-payment of the debt resulting from the aforementioned Contract,
In view of the negotiations held and the understanding between the Debtor and the Creditor, the Parties have agreed to conclude this Payment Agreement, in accordance with art. 2.267 et seq. of the New Civil Code, as follows:
PART 1 OF 5 (The Basics)
On the 27th of April 2020 Formin SA registered a claim into the Caras Severin County Tribunal, against African Consolidated Resources SRL (ACR), in relation to two unpaid invoices, with an outstanding balance of 852,678.48 lei.
As a result, on the 25th of May 2020, a new 'Payment Agreement' was negotiated between Formin SA and ACR in order to ensure the outstanding balance was repaid, and to maintain an "amicable" relationship with ACR. This was delivered in open Court on 29th of May 2020.
This dispute is clearly related to both our zagra licences, for anybody (like myself) who has been wondering where those drill results were.
We know that Formin SA were contracted to carry out prospecting activities on the Magura Neagra and Piciorul Zimbrului licence areas, through the Geologist working for Formin SA at the time, Ioan Cosoreanu (linked-In).
The Judgment, which includes the updated terms of the 'Payment Agreement' is quite difficult to take in, due to the way in which it has been printed. I have (without editing) translated and organised the judgment in order to make it more interpretable, and have also included the link for reassurance.
For the purpose of general Information, I have listed (by Date) as many relavant events, and company announcements as I can think of relating to our Zagra licences.
(RNS) and Events Timeline
14.12.16 - Geo Works contracts formed
22.12.16 - (MN & PZ Acquisition)
17.10.17 - (Prospecting works began)
19.11.18 - (Commencement of drilling)
25.02.19 - Prosp Rep submitted to NAMR
27.02.19 - (Final prospect report lodged)
27.04.20 - Case Registration
25.05.20 - Payment Agreement created
29.05.20 - Court Delivery
03.09.21 - Still no Drill Results announced
PART 2 OF 2
What is interesting though, is that on the 10th of October 2020, four weeks after the company published its 'Baita Plai update', an employee of Vast Baita Plai SA named Filip Doru, registered an appeal to the Tribunal in Bihor County. His case was heard, and the judgment announced on February 10th 2021.
Given both the registration date of the case, and the content of the judgment, I'm quite confident to say that the employee who was dismissed over this Rail Bridge Incident, was that of Mr Filip Doru.
Tribunal, Bihor - Judgment 10.02.2021
Case Number - 2907/111/2020
Registration Date - 09.10.2020
Appealant - Filip Doru
Defendant - Vast Baita Plai SA
The Court admits (in part) appeal lodged by Filip Doru, against Vast Baita Plai SA.
Orders the annulment of additional Act Number 40/23.09.2020, amending the Appelants individual Employment contract.
Orders Vast Baita Plai SA to reinstate Appelent in post previously occupied.
Orders Vast Baita Plai SA to pay the difference in salary rights between the salary due and that received, with effect from 10.10.2020.
Court dismisses counterclaim made by Vast Baita Plai SA as 'unfounded'.
Orders Vast Baita Plai SA to pay Filip Doru the sum of 800 lei by way of partial costs.
Strange that the judgment should suggest that our employee Mr Doru, wasnt so much to blame for the incident as the company would have liked us to believe.
To me, the judgment makes clear, through the orders to reimburse and reinstate, that Mr Doru was not at fault, and was also unfairly dismissed. On that basis, it must be assumed that Mr Doru WAS following all the rules on the day of the incident.
So.......if Mr Doru was infact behaving in a perfectly reasonable and responsible manner that day, where no speeding on the Bridge, and no overloading of the Bridge, can be to blame for its collapse, it leaves the lingering question.....why did the Rail Bridge collapse?
This genuinely makes me think that the Rail Bridge was never safe to begin with, and that safety checks may have been overlooked or even ignored. Not only that, Mr Doru may have been made the unfortunate scapegoat used to cover the companies failings. Maybe these 'missing details' from the incident, are missing for a good reason?
There needs to be some basic level of transparency in this company, and maybe it can begin today, with the companies full disclosure of the sequence of events relating to the Rail Bridge incident, including any necessary reports or documentation from the relevant Inspectorate?.
PART 1 OF 2
On the 7th of September last year, the company made an announcement informing shareholders of a Safety issue that had occured at the Baita Plai Mine, where a "minor delay of three to four weeks" was required in order to carry out repair works to the Rail Bridge, that had been damaged in an unexplained incident.
In response - "The Company would like to assure shareholders that it has reacted swiftly and decisively in response to this safety issue, and has conducted an audit which has resulted in immediate personnel changes".
Whilst managing to make themselves appear proactive in a single sentence, the second half of the comment gives the reader the impression that the employee must have been behaving irresponsibly...........otherwise 'immediate personnel changes' would not have been needed, right?
The company has focused its attention on emphasising who was responsible for the delay, the actions needed to rectify the issue, and the disciplinary measures taken as a result, yet very little attention (or none) has gone into explaining any of the details of the incident itself, why is this? Would knowing these 'missing details' possibly implicate the company somehow?
So what exactly did happen.......was our employee travelling too fast on the locomotive as he crossed the Rail Bridge? Was our employee hauling too many wagons, exceeding the bridge's weight capacity? Was our employee trained, and in knowledge of the speed and load limits of the bridge? Or worse, was the Rail Bridge unsafe to begin with?
Without these 'missing details' its difficult to know for sure what happened that day. All shareholders have, is the companies word, and the results from their (internal) Audit.
On the 1st of March I uploaded a post titled 'Over a Barrel' where I explained the doubts I had with the existence of this "International Bank". I viewed this Bank as 'fictional', a fabrication by the company to allow Andrew Prelea the ability to exercise his options (AP Options) under the disguise of a Bank request.
As we all now know, that 'International Bank' never showed its face, and shareholders were left massively diluted through the purchase of the remaining 20% of Baita Plai via APMG (AP Options)
Looking back at the transaction today, and taking into consideration the legal claims filed against Vast Baita Plai SA for the period 2019 - 2021 for the non-payment of bills, I can't see any reason why a Bank would have even touched the company.
How could any Bank possibly entertain the idea of lending money to a company with numerous defaults against its name, no assets to pledge as security, and (at the time) no revenues from production. This Bank would never have got their money back, and its for this reason I find it impossible to think there was ever a Bank there at all.
I genuinely believe that the company has lied to the market in regards to this 'International Bank'. The company has never provided a single piece of evidence that can be used to confirm the Banks existence, not even a name...........Does this not sound suspicious to anybody?
Without this basic information, how can shareholders know if they've been lied too about the Bank or not? how can they be sure they've not been diluted for the benefit of Andrew Prelea and the other APMG members?. We can't.
How can a potential scandal, such as the misuse of company capital, or the misleading of the market be proved, if the guy that sold the asset to the company, is the same guy withholding the information?
The APMG transaction was apparently designed by the Bank to eliminate any conflict of interest, but given the potential of a scandal, I struggle to see how the conflict has been eliminated in any way.
I also understand that certain posters will always claim that the Nominated Advisor would not allow what I've mentioned above to take place, possibly in an attempt to discredit any negative post, but in the real world, our society is filled with corruption, From politicians, to corporations, even the police, and although it may seem unthinkable to those same certain posters, possibly even Nominated Advisors too.
There needs to be some basic level of transparency in this company, and maybe it can begin today, with the company proving the existence of, and the communications with, this imaginary 'International Bank' of theirs?
I wonder if the company deliberately choose to announce the acquisition of Ghaghoo diamond mine, for the same date that was set for the judgment of the court case?
If my assumption was correct, and the case today was related to unpaid bills, then the company would have already known the most likely outcome of the case from day one.
Given that, it would seem logical for the company to make its announcement on that day. Not only would this distract shareholders, but it will also help the company avoid any potential criticism as a result of the judgment.
The Court has accepted the claim made by SC Electrica Furnizare SA and ordered Vast Baita Plai SA to pay 200,000 lei to the creditor within 10 days of this judgment.
The Court has also ordered Vast Baita Plai SA to pay the creditor 200 lei, for the cost of proceedings, representing the judicial stamp duty, with the right to apply for annulment within 10 days of this judgment.
Case Number - 6566/182/2021
https://www.curteadeapelcluj.ro/index.php/dosare/info-dosar.html#
If in the next 10 days, no application for annulment is submitted to the courts, it's case closed, and fully enforcable.
Our subsidiaries next hearing, in an on going case with SC Civila Profesionala De Avocati Dumitrascu & Asociatii is due to be heard on 14.09.2021.
"Guys, focus, shattly run company, yet a company with loads of potential. It's a buy out on the way."
The problem I have with a "shattly run company" is that they are usually "shattly run". The other problem I have with them, is that they usually fail to reveal their potential, precisely because of the way they are ran.
"I thought 'placing to keep the lights on' was just a bb joke term"
LOL - It's not so funny with Vast though.
If I remember rightly, there was a discussion on the board regarding a diesel engined car down in the underground galleries at Baita Plai..........maybe that was the companies solution to 'keeping the lights on' as part of the bigger "mechanised mine plan".
The companies subsidiary (Vast Baita Plai SA) is due to attend a hearing at the Baia Mare Courts on Monday 23rd August at 10.30 am (Rom Time)
As it's a payment Order thats being waved about by the Court, I can only assume that our subsidiary did not pay its electricity bill..........which wouldnt surprise me.
Baia Mare Courts (Payment Order)
Case Number - 6566/182/2021/a1
Registration Date - 17.08.2021
Creditor - SC Electrica Furnizare SA
Debitor - SC Vast Baita Plai SA
https://www.curteadeapelcluj.ro/index.php/dosare/info-dosar.html
I wonder how much this Payment Order is for, and whether part of the recent placing was to help cover this cost?
This is not the only claim filed against Vast Baita Plai SA.
Axel Paza SRL (Security / Protection Firm)
Intelego SRL (Accountancy Firm)
Republika Interactive SRL (comm's Firm)
SC Civila Profesionala De Avocati Dumitrascu & Asociatii (Legal Firm)
And various other romanian Individuals.
Why do we need additional assets? we already have enough, at least prove to shareholders first, that the "flaghip" can do what it has always been claimed it can do. Or if the money must to be spent, spend it progressing the assets we do have.
I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldnt mind seeing the results from the 4000m drilling campaign that the company contracted out to Formin SA for both the Zagra licences.................it's been long enough.
How is our 29% stake in the Blueberry Project progressing?
In the knowledge that ZCDC's existence is in question in parliament, How is our Chiadzwa project progressing?
How about Carlibaba?
What actually happened to the employee that was hit by the wagon, and what changes were needed in the mine to make it safe? (if any)
What damage was done to the flotation plant? what caused it? and is it likely to happen again?
I think Andrew Prelea needs to keep share holders more informed about the assets we do hold, before 'splashing out' on new ones. If not, we run the risk of potentially repeating the same mistakes of the past by speading the company to far, and too thin again. The last thing I want now is another financial restructuring.