||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Oxus Gold Share Discussion Threads
Showing 37176 to 37196 of 37200 messages
|If Room 1-1 in the Paris Court of Appeal is where our case will be heard next years (arbitrage: nullité des sentences, then we should be looking for next year's timetable for this court, if we aren't stymied by any other events first.
No new news about Ms. G.K. but it may turn out to be interesting who is impersonating her and why.
|When will someone take action against ubekistan! Corrupt bunch of C#&!$
|That was worth logging into advfn then! Lol
|Any news here?|
|Finally KARMA is catching up with these A Holes ....|
|"For me, the asset-recovery issue is the biggest unacknowledged, unpublicized issue of U.S.-Uzbek relations at this moment," says Alexander Cooley, a Barnard College professor and co-author of an upcoming book about Central Asian government elites. "This is the issue that is really shaping ties."
"The U.S. will want to gain traction with a new leadership in Tashkent, and the need for good relations with a new Uzbek president may well have an impact on the negotiations over the funds," says David Lewis, a former Central Asia researcher with the International Crisis Group who now teaches at the University of Exeter.
The seizure of Karimova-linked funds is one of the largest ever by the U.S. Justice Department, which used it to tout its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, a program designed to seize illicit gains from corrupt officials around the world and repatriate illegally acquired assets to their home countries.
Even before Karimov's death, however, the Uzbek talks were said to have been what one Western consultant familiar with the process described as "very difficult."
Full article is here: hTTp://www.rferl.org/a/uzbekistan-karimova-us-seized-funds-returning-to-whom/28027243.html
Another interesting but off-topic article is here (sorry if it has been posted before)
|Not much change in sight following the regime change and the leaning towards Moscow doesn't bode well for the likelihood of any conciliatory gestures toward us designed to encourage inward investment by the west, IMO.
As for Goo Goo, she knows how to keep a low profile when she needs to - "Grégoire Mangeat, a court-appointed lawyer representing Ms. Karimova in Switzerland, said he has never succeeded in contacting his client." !!|
|Yes that was my interpretation too. North of $20 mn and shareholders should get something back|
|ok thanks NB.|
My understanding is the deal is still confidential. Nobody would be surprised if the deal was 3 times the amount expended + a small percentage of anything above that. I.e. they, say, get back their original capital ($7m?) + about $14m + a small percentage of anything above the approximate $20m-$21m figure. It makes sense that for most of the range of original possible outcomes ($0 to $1.2bn) that Calunius would not get as much as we expected back per dollar invested by us contemporaneously with Calunius' investment because Calunius put itself ahead of us in the payment queue (you have to give up some expected return in exchange for a greater certainty of a return in an efficiently priced risk market?).
Since the actual return (zero even for Calunius) so far is less than most of the expected possible returns, it has not worked to our advantage to hold on to more of our claim than we otherwise would have, e.g. if Calunius had been issued (in return for the litigation finance they supplied) with new shares that ranked pari passu with ours, then of course we would be getting some of our investment back, pro rata (if that is the right expression) with Calunius, from the very first dollar of any payout.
Many of us won't be better off than Calunius unless there is quite a high payout e.g. towards the $100m mark, I wonder? I got the impression at the meeting that most people thought we would not get anything back until Calunius gets about $20m back. That does not seem an unreasonable figure for the risk Calunius took, so I believe that figure. Slightly circuitous 'answer' to your question, but other people at the meeting had your question on their minds too, and Nick2412 has mentioned this number too. The number is approximate of course. A good name for the figure is highly educated guesswork.|
|I don't suppose anybody asked the question about what the deal with Calinius was? why would it still be confidential and is this deal structured in such a way that it is pointless getting our hopes up because they will take all the money along with the other vultures because of some clause, surely RW would know this.
|Very interesting reading chaps and how i'd love to be back to 56p!|
|I still believe we will get justice.
Thanks for info being posted, I found this from over 10 years ago. The result we had stinks, notice the share price at the bottom. Fingers toes everything crossed, this might not be as dead as first thought.
The US government was on the verge of wading into the diplomatic dispute between Oxus Gold, the AIM-listed mining company, and the Kyrgyz government yesterday, after the group served official dispute notices on the Kyrgyzstan authorities and suspended construction of its new mining facilities in the country.
In a statement to the London market yesterday morning, Oxus said it had forwarded the dispute notices to both the UK Government and Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, who it claimed was supportive of the British company due to its significant number of American investors.
Oxus said the dispute notices now open the door for the UK and US to take formal action against the Kyrgyz government if necessary.
inRead invented by Teads
The dispute first erupted several weeks ago when the Kyrgyz government withdrew Oxus's mining licence. Last month, Tony Blair entered the dispute, writing to the Kyrgyzstan President, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, warning that his country was not living up to its obligations under the global anti-corruption initiative.
President Bakiyev fired back an angry letter in which he insisted he did not need to be reminded of his obligations, and claimed the reason for the withdrawal of Oxus's licence was that the company was "irresponsible" and "unlawful".
It has been suggested that Oxus is the victim of an attempt by a group of Georgian businessmen, in league with the Kyrgyz authorities, to take over the mine.
Bill Trew, Oxus's chief executive, said he remained confident that the dispute would settled soon. "We have been building the Jerooy mine in good faith and with the express encouragement and full knowledge of the Kyrgyz government," he said.
After falling as much as 11 per cent in early trading, the stock eventually closed down 3.9 per cent at 56p
|excellent posts. but will we really be able to challenge the arbitration decision based on this error?
ideally we should be able to, as the sale of Jerooy and any associated cash, was nothing to do with our Uzbek operations, and there would be no logical reason to make those funds available to Oxus and their AGF partners for use at Amantaytau.
the arbitration has made a MAJOR wrong decision here from a finacial/accounting perspective about the operation of Oxus and it subsidiaries.
the lawyers should be over this like a rash if that formed the basis of the arbitration decision.
|Good read. Thanks Nick|
|Thanks for all the reports and good to see you nobull and others there. Wifly's expert opinon was particularly enlightening and helpful. It was good of Richard W to set it up and some useful ideas and info were exchanged.
I do question the fairness and perhaps honesty of the international arbitration system when eminent arbitrators (Lalonde aside in terms of honesty and fairness) can conduct a Tribunal over several years costing millions in fees and then produce a decision that is justified by a schoolboy grotesque error of fact. 'Schoolboy error' doesn't really get close to describing how inept the process has been to allow it to slip through. Nobull has highlighted it succintly and I have copied it below. Seemingly (and I'd be delighted if I was corrected by wilfy) it is impossible to challenge any award based on errors of fact being made. I just hope that the option to appeal part of the award via 'international policy' allows such errors to be highlghted by the back door as it were.
When an error is so crass then surely it means the arbitrators were incompetent or corrupt? I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest they were corrupt but when a mistake of such magnitude is made to justify a decision that has taken so many years to form then it's reasonable to raise an eyebrow and muse over honesty and competence and in a public forum settle on incompetence. Unfortunately, I don't think incompetence is included in the reasons that allow an appeal to be made in the French courts.
12 Sep '16 - 07:27 - 32741 of 32778 3 0
This from the arbitral award is misleading:
"This [the fact that the complex audit and the resultant $224m fines did not lead to the entire destruction of the investment in Uzbekistan] is clearly evidenced by the fact that claimant paid out in 2007 a dividend of US$65.7m to its shareholders as a result of its operations in Uzbekistan (see para 555)."
The $65.7m in-specie dividend of KazakhGold Global Depositary Receipts was payment for the sale of Jerooy, nothing to do with Uzbekistan. Why would Oxus park $65.7m of KZG shares in Uzbekistan for safe keeping?
So if we correct the error made by the arbitrators then the arbitrators would have concluded that the 'complex audit and the resultant $224m fines' DID 'lead to the entire destruction of the investment in Uzbekistan'. Or in one word .... expropriation!|
|Thanks for keeping those of us who could not attend the meeting informed.|
|Many thanks to those for the informed posts and updates.|
|Nico - I had the same with GBO / OXS / KIAAll no longer listed...|
|My rns alert flashed up an oxus rns yesterday. I can't see anything on the wires and there's nothing on the bdo website that is new. I'm assuming that the alert was false, but wondered if anyone else had received a similar alert?|
|Good work all!Fingers crossed now.|