Member Info for Toffers

It's all getting very HOT with GOLD down under, look at this one. High hopes for Greatland, I think Shaun will take it places for sure.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/1016879/bellevue-gold-s-namesake-project-is-fully-permitted-on-track-for-first-gold-this-year-1016879.html

AGM!!!

This was the Sinopec one, I definitely read something on Sinosteel, but anyhow, put it on the list for the AMG!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1586971/china-news-xi-jinping-russia-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-sinopec-cancels-sibur-deal

Also see this, which states it's a 10 year loan! Well there's only 4 years max left to 2027! What's the score Eurasia? is Sinosteel still in, or out?

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/essential-ir-insights-newsletter-april-2023

Note - "The plant contract is exclusive to Sinosteel for a period of ten years."

But nothing is happening, yet it was stated "The contract is for the development of two platinum deposits and a 1.7mln tonnes per year beneficiation plant."

It's 7 years this year since it was signed! It may be that Sinosteel realise that nothing is going to happen, who knows? The company could clarify, let's hope they do so for the AGM, if it ever happens!

Actually, got it wrong, I think the agreement was signed 2016, not 2018!

https://www.miningsee.eu/eurasia-mining-plc-doubles-on-us176mln-deal-for-russian-platinum-project/

P.s. they seem to have gone big in Australia! Something isn't right?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fortescue-sinosteel-sign-deal-assess-western-australia-iron-ore-project-2022-01-21/

Beast I'm trying to find it, it might have been an article referring to the war and the frustration of contracts but it definitely said Sinosteel was gone. Also odd if you think about it, they signed that deal in November 2018, I've just checked, yet in March 2018 they did an interview to say they had two interested parties in buying MT. If they had 2 interested parties in March and then kept up the facade of a sales process, why did they enter the Sino agreement only 7 months later? Doesn't make sense at all. Perhaps the company can clarify whether the Sinosteel agreement is still live, or did it die before the war began or since the war began?

IKN, I'm not doing it to be retaliatory with you, I definitely read that the Sinosteel deal is kaput, the problem is with eurasia, they don't tell you anything even at the best of times. Yes, it should be rns'd, but they seem to pick and choose what they release to the market, and if the sp is falling, they don't seem to bother! If they rns that Sinosteel is no more, the sp will go to under 1p! I do agree with you, as I have said, that they should have rns'd the litigation, particularly Mispare and Queeld, it was deceitful not to do so, but again, I suspect they didn't because they didn't want the sp falling off a cliff and people running to the hills and trying to get out. As I said, had it been rns'd, I would have been out, and at 21p, I'd have not made the rather large loss that I have, so I blame them entirely for that, I am angry with them, and I personally think they have been very underhanded in a lot of ways. As I've said, you need to start compiling a list of questions in advance for the AGM, because I think you should know when that case is going to be heard, and what happens if they lose it. Plus, why did the Nomad stick his head above the parapet, and announce that there might be a massive dividend or words to that effect, which enticed shareholders to stay on board and buy more shares, when they already knew they had high court litigation pending? To my mind, he should have been sacked long ago, why is the company paying his wages? problem is, if he goes, it's unlikely they will get another Nomad, so they're hanging on and paying a loose cannon. Then what really did go on with AC and those shares, and why did the previous Nomad walk out, what did they know and didn't like, and a whole host of other questions, get compiling them, because as I say, if they lose the Queeld case, it has to be curtains, as they haven't got the money to fork out for damages and both parties legal costs as far as I can see. My views.

Nuffin, what did they do with the nickel, they moved it out in to a subsidiary company, what is Montechundra, nickel and palladium, when did they incorporate the subsidiary? after the Sinosteel agreement was signed with Eurasia and not with the subsidiary, plus they had to get mining underway and go through a number of hoops before 2027 arrives, and that hasn't happened. I read recently that Sinosteel is gone. Ask the company what's the position at the AGM, although I doubt the AGM will happen somehow! My two penny worth!

Sinosteel deal is gone. Check the terms and conditions.

It's mentioned in the Aim on Air interview, Shaun states that Rio chose us in that.

See TW has written again today but don't have a sub so can't read the full content! Only this ...

"The maths is not hard. And at some stage soon Eurasia Mining (EWUA) needs to come clean. Let me show you why the position is now critical."

The problem is this, if the company tell you what the downside might be if they lose the case, then you'll all be selling out now, so they're not going to say. They are looking after their own interests, not yours, and that's why I wouldn't even trust this lot any more, they didn't tell shareholders about the disputes and subsequent litigation, and yet they pressed on selling it to shareholders that the 'sale' was still in the air, and even had the Nomad join in enticing peeps to buy shares when he must have known that there was a dispute which reared it's ugly head in 2018! Yes, he wasn't Nomad then, but he has been since mid 2019, and he should have acted far more responsibily IMO FWIW. I still wonder if more litigation will come out of the woodwork!

Del, from recollection the indemnity insurance only covers if a third party were to be found to be in possession of the certificates and I think both parties had to sign to confirm they accepted the terms, but I'm sure IKN will fill you in, seeing he doesn't even know if damages were being claimed and were adamant they weren't, then he's your man for misinformation!

For the record, you can call me what you like, but I will always play devils advocate, and in this matter, I think it' important, you need to assess the implications of if the case is lost, and you're not doing that. Ask the company to inform shareholders what is the likely scenario should the company lose the Mispare/Queeld case? how will damages and legal costs be paid. I suspect they won't come clean and tell you, because they know, as you all do, but you daren't say, that it will be most likely be curtains! Instead of burying your heads in the sand, for heavens sake debate it, because it's your cash that's at risk, and potentially, you could lose it all, on a case the company couldn't even be bothered to inform shareholders about. Quite frankly, win or lose, it's disgusting they didn't inform shareholders IMO.

So you now admit there was an offer of indemnity insurance with a 30 day expiry? you change like the wind Mont, you declare there is no such thing, and then when picked up on it, you then try and twist it that you knew, so why did you diss it before? just like your mate nuffin who said there was no claim for damages tut tut. The case is quite simple, were the certificates lost, the claimants say they were which is why they have brought the case in the end, if lost, what did they do so as to go about to replace the same? they were told they needed to get an indemnity to cover the company against any false claim. Did they do that? yes, they did, they obtained an offer of indemnity insurance with a 30 day expiry. Did they bring it to the company's agents attention? yes they did. Did the company deal with the same in a timely manner? No they didn't, they didn't deal with it at all it seems. If the company had dealt with it, is it likely the indemnity insurance would have been activated? Yes, as the offer was there in black and white. Are the claimants therefore at fault in that they failed to follow any of the requests made for replacement of the same? It appears they did all they could to effect indemnity insurance and that the company through it's agents dragged its heels. As a result, the offer of indemnity insurance expired, and then no further offers were forthcoming because the war intervened. Separate issue, does the court have jurisdiction bearing in mind the claimants, or at least one, is not a British company? well clearly the Judge has accepted that the court does have jursidiction as the matter seems to be progressing to trial. What has gone on with Queeld in the interim is peripheral, the Judge is not being asked to determine any of that, he is simply being asked to determine that should two companies who had share certificates originally afforded to them in a company, and then lost them, have had them replaced, so as to allow them to sell their shares like anyone else with shares in the company? The company i think set out it's in their discretion but they require an indemnity, and the claimants secured an offer of indemnity, and notified the company, but nothing happened, and the offer expired. What else could Mispare and Queeld do? As I say, my view is the best way to solve it now is for Queeld and Mispare to give undertakings to the court, and the company is ordered to replace their certificates, but that then leaves the question of damages to be determined and legal costs. Why would the company not want to acquiesce to Mispare and Queeld having replacement certificates? No doubt because they would have started to sell out, and the company knew this, so the only way of stopping the market from being flooded with shares was to do everything possible to withhold replacing the certificates. As I have said, imagine if that was you or I asking for a replacement? your cash, and they say no! That could happen! IMO

Sandgrounded, as you no doubt know full well, they can call an EGM, and ask for shareholders to approve the release of further shares in to the market place. I haven't looked, but the Articles of Association may already give the company the right to release a set number anyway if desired.

The points I took away from the Liam interview were that SD made it very clear they have no intention of mothbolling Hav, they have no plan to sell, Wyloo is a very strategic shareholder who will not be easily taken over! they are setting conditions for long term success, they don't intend to draw down on the banks as yet, because when they do, they will have to repay the loan from Newcrest as that has to be repaid if any other loan is taken, he views Newmont very positively, the JV will evolve, and it affords a huge amount of continuity, SD has worked with Newmont before and it will take the company from a player in 20bn dollar Newcrest to a 60bn Major in Rio.

He stressed that Newmont need to complete the 20bn transaction first before anything else. ASX will be for long term success and they are not transitioning away from London. Australian funds will be able to invest, discussion then about the September quarter, which I took him to reference as August time, SD stated the press speculation was disappointing and unfortunate and they did what they thought was best practice, good governance, and the article was speculation. Finally, he wants to minimise dilution but hopefully will be successful at delivering Hav and thanked shareholders for their continued support. I was happy with all that, and look forward to part 2, and ignore the naysayers, they know this will start building momentum very soon.

P.s. the best solution to the Mispare/Queeld case now, in my opinion, is that the parties agree that Mispare/Queeld give undertakings to the court that they will declare the certificates as found, if they subsequently appear, and hand them over to the court so they can be disposed of with the consent of the company. I can't see why the old certificates cannot be de-listed, as they would surely include numbers for each and every certificate, the company will have those numbers, and will note on the systems that they must not be encashed, a bit like Rolex keep a note of serial numbers of stolen watches. So on that basis, I can't see why the claimants can't give an undertaking to the court, and the company issue replacement certificates, but then it still leaves the question of damages to be assessed, and costs. Would you be happy if the company lost details of your shareholding say and refused to replace your share 'certificates' on the register? I've read on a number of boards that replacing the same is a colossal expense, even for ordinary shareholders who might only hold a few shares in a company! Let's hope Link don't have a malfunction! My views.

Wrong, have you even read the amended particulars Mont? Obviously not, otherwise you would know that they have stated that they were offered indemnity insurance and put it to the company's representatives but they did nothing! So you can't read nor understand, and iknownuffin states they didn't even claim damages when it's there in black and white at point 5, "damages to be assessed". What a pair of wallies you are, and if anyone listens to either or the pair of you, heaven help them. I have stated repeatedly, the company got themselves in to this mess. They had two years + to sort it out before the claimants finally issued High Court proceedings, but they failed to sort it, and failed to notify shareholders of it. Churakov sold a mass of shares, they claimed they knew nothing about it. If you believe that, heaven help you. My guess is that he was trying to help the claimants out and got a wrap over the knuckles from the company, as it was stated it was an "urgent cash call", doesn't that seem strange? of course it does. Why didn't they tell shareholders at the outset of the dispute or at least when proceedings were issued? the likely fact is that they didn't want a mass sell off of shares, which probably would have happened, and the same with Queeld and Mispare, they didn't want them to have replacement certificates because they knew they would create a mass sell off situation, as Queeld had other monetary issues to attend to, and that would have sunk the sp, and they wouldn't have been able to place on the back of that. So they hoodwinked investors all round, including moving money offshore so it's untouchable, money that was raised from a placing which they said would be used for the Rosgeo JV! You need to start asking questions and soon, because right now, I'd say the odds of them winning the Queeld/Mispare case are low, the main argument being that they highly likely knew that they intended to start selling their shares in earnest if their certificates were replaced, and the company didn't want that. Now you tell me that a High Court Judge won't consider that argument in earnest? and taking in to account all the activities of eurasia in recent years, which the claimants will no doubt bring to the Judge's attention, you tell me why they wouldn't win their case, bearing in mind they presented details to the company for indemnity insurance, which had an offer period of 30 days, and the company did nothing? My views, but read the pleadings because you two clearly know nuffin.