Member Info for tedoby

Thanks Eagle1. Great research! Fingers crossed.

Catch I believe it's an explicit condition that's found in most agreements almost without exception. Riots and civil commotion fall under it as in this case but also those regarded as "Acts of God" too. If you recall it was Emeds first line of defence it the claim against it for flood damage when the river Tinto broke it's banks some years ago. Although there's little risk I believe that still appears in ATYMs accounts as a Contingent Liability. Interesting times and we could see this industrial dispute as the first of several as the price of copper rises especially if the workers succeed. AIMHO GLA

Hi Mr0. Thanks for all the feedback and comments. Good stuff. So if neither party are in breach of the "Deferred Settlement" Agreement I imagine the judge will want to apply the explicit terms as read.He'll look at them all collectively I'm sure and he'll consider them together where they're linked too I've no doubt. If he believes that the clause saying the start of any payments is conditional upon the first drawdown of a "Senior Debt" facility must be read in conjunction with the fact that the "Deferred Settlement" must nevertheless be paid in accordance with the 7 year schedule as agreed his mind will surely turn to when payments should begin. And if that's right he may need to look no further than the latest NI43-101 report. It has an extremely high regulatory and legal status in the mining industry and has been prepared by independent experts. It has the LOM stated as 16 years starting from commercial production and if my maths is correct that takes us to 2032. To fit the schedule in I wonder if he might rule that payments must therefore be started either by the Senior Debt trigger or by January 2025 as a long stop? I've a feeling the judge might want to settle all matters in his court rather than refer matters to another forum. Other than costs that is,which I think will be considered at a separate cost hearing later on. And again if all of that's right it could lead to a sttlement out of court sooner rather than later. Just my thoughts and GLA

Thanks for going Mr. O and reporting back. It's seems to me that the judge is interested in the terms of the contract and little time for nonsense. It's Astors case to prove that all the BOD were not acting in the interests of ALL shareholders by selecting the equity route. At the end of the day Emed may have intended part debt finance at one stage but that may have changed because of market conditions and after all it was only an intention and they weren't tied to it. As I say it's up to Astor to prove otherwise. I personally think that's almost impossible. The BOD were running the company and not Astor, Astor on the other hand wanted paying and therefore must have had a conflict of interest and it would have been natural to put his own first. I think the judge will be very aware of that. AIMHO and GLA

Juxta I don't understand why you think "the Orion and XGC funding was worded in the same way: their agreement has been honored " How do you know it's been honoured please?

Juxta so that I can be clear. As far as I'm aware ATYM have never denied there is a "Deferred Settlement". It seems clear that Astor accepted a risk when they agreed the schedule of payments would begin which is on the receipt of the first draw down from "Senior Debt" finance. Why does the 2013 RNS your referring to have any bearing on that ? If you're going to quote from it please copy and paste if you would. Thanks

Guys you may already know this but the AIM Rules will no longer include reference to close periods as Article 19(11) under MAR ( European Law ) established a new definition of “closed” period which prohibits dealings by PDMR's during this period. I don't believe AIM Rule 21 applies any more. It's superseded in effect. As noted above, the prohibition of dealing during a close period by PDMRs is contained in Article 19(11) which applies to AIM companies and PDMRs from 3 July 2016. Therefore we could well see this SP re-rate significantly w/c 24 October or thereabouts when the new operations update is due to be issued given it's sure to contain inside information and the directors may now working under a 30 day trading policy which prevents them from buying before then. AIMHO GLA

This release should have gone out on Friday but I guess it will go out at 7 AM Monday. In case you can’t wait here is the EMED Mining (EMED) RNS in full and it is good news but EMED is not out of the woods yet. I have also been chatting to the EMED CEO over the weekend – he seems a decent enough guy. Basically the loans that were due for repayment on March 30th have been extended until June 30th. The company can now draw down on the additional $6 million loan facility. That will give it enough cash to last until mid may. The EMED boss expects to get the final green light for Rio Tinto before then which will trigger another funding round – a mixture of debt and equity to raise c$80 million. The chat with EMED was constructive and detailed. I will sleep on it and report back in more detail next week. Meanwhile here is the release:

Guys do any of you have a contact business email address for Roger Davey please? GLA