Atalaya Mining Share Discussion Threads

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 28/1/2017 09:30

#Charlieeee, thanks for correcting my adding up of shares, I was in a rush to get somewhere and overlooked a lot of the loan notes that converted to shares, and some new equity too, c3.5BN shares in issue pre-consolidation is correct.

On Justice Leggatt's rulings, I get that if a contract is long standing, although it could have been poorly drafted with grey areas, but if it had been in process for years with both parties operating to it with trading taking place goods/monies exchanged, and then it gets challenged, the contract could carry some 'good faith'.

But if the contract has never been triggered, and the challenge is to establish whether the triggers have all been met, then that's a different matter. it's not the Judges position to start reading words in a contract that are not there.., but to rule on the agreement signed..?

Very interesting times, but worst case downside for ATYM is we run with the original terms..?

Realistic outcome..? I expect we will have to pay Astor some monies, we have built our plant on their land after all, perhaps Traf's lawyers are really looking for an opportunity to renegotiate the 6/7 year terms to LOM which is perhaps more sensible..?

[husbod] 27/1/2017 22:58

That was one of the best posts I've read on this or any other board charlieee. Maybe you should change your moniker to "m'lud".

Good response too sbt.

Seems like our judge fancies himself as the commercial court's equivalent to Lord Denning.

However, it is in my view a slippery slope if you start introducing equitable principles into the field of commercial law. You can't have uncertainty of contract in commercial arrangements and our agreement is very precise about what triggers the payment. I would be surprised and concerned if the judge felt he could introduce a term into the contract that is clearly not there.

I would also have thought that if he does then we'll appeal the decision.

Anyway who is to say that the contract didn't reflect the intentions of at least one of the parties. We might have signed it precisely because we were only prepared to agree to the payment being triggered if we needed to raise senior debt and maybe Astor only wanted to protect themselves in the event of our needing to raise senior debt.

I am sure we could argue that neither party intended the agreement to cover equity raising as if they had then it is inconceivable that this contingency would not have been covered. This would mean that Astor's lawyers are off the hook and Astor are just trying it on/being opportunistic in bringing this action.

Rarely do I wish I lived in London but I would really like to attend court on Monday to hear the arguments.

[superbobtaylor] 27/1/2017 21:22

Good points c. A more in depth article is here.

hxxp://www.traverssmith.com/media/1333036/good_faith___what_does_it_mean_july_2013.pdf

I picked this para out

"In practice, good faith has generally had less of an impact where the contract clearly sets out the terms of the bargain struck between the parties."

"The judge noted that good faith "does not require a party to give up a freely negotiated advantage clearly embedded in the contract."'

Looks like we have an interesting case. Could set a precedent.

SBT

[scargs] 27/1/2017 18:07

I would like to wish Alberto and his legal teams all success next week.

It will be good to draw a line under the Astor case and it will be good to move ATYM´s remarkable journey forward on the back of a rising copper price and a prodicted world wide copper deficit.

Not sure when the Astor result will be announced, however I sincerely hope that a decision is made by the end of February 2017 at the very latest.

Alberto and his mining team have done a fantastic job and I hope this success carries through next week.

Scargs

[cufes2] 27/1/2017 16:52

The mark ups and downs daily prior to open are due to timing of MMs coming on line . . . Unless there is actual news out of course . . . We've been through the large spread issue before . . .

[husbod] 27/1/2017 16:50

Who are "the others" on our side I wonder?

[waterloo01] 27/1/2017 16:11

Unless the case get a summary dismissal, it could be a number of weeks or even months before we get a judgement.

[rougepierre] 27/1/2017 15:51

So lingo...you're trying to persuade me on the one hand that nobody in an MM has any idea of any issue impacting a share with a MCap of £180 million....and on the other hand that all pricing in ATYM i driven by algorithms...

In which case, why do they mark up or mark down before a trading day begins sometimes...

And why is the spread about 5 points today, just coincidentally the last trading day before the Court Case? Oh of course, the algorithm knows its friday....

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 27/1/2017 15:38

[news]

ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
COURT 34
Before MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
Monday 30 January 2017
At 10:30 AM (All Day)
Part Heard
Commercial Trial
CL-2015-000790 Astor Management AG (formerly known as MRI Holding AG) and another v. Atalaya Mining Plc (formerly EMED Mining... and others

Copper $2.69/lb going into the weekend..

[777mason] 27/1/2017 15:37

and yet another dummy trader on here...-)))

[langostino] 27/1/2017 14:16

rp - MMs would be completely unaware of the impending court case. Atalaya is a tiny entry near the bottom of their book with prices set by predetermined algorithms, possibly negatively rebalanced by an untypically large number of uncompleted orders - or dummy trades as you enjoy calling them.

[rougepierre] 27/1/2017 13:08

The Actual dealing spread right now is 151/155.5...MMs not taking any risks before Monday....

[midyson] 27/1/2017 12:36

if its in a spanish court and hasnt already been postponed then we may get a decision sometime next year if lucky

[husbod] 27/1/2017 12:23

I wonder whether judgement will be given on the day of the hearing or whether it will be reserved so the judge can do a spot of cross dressing and clubbing whilst he considers his decision.

[rougepierre] 27/1/2017 12:05

As well as the potential Chilean strike, Freeport are slashing Indonesian production...



Commodities supercycle bull run underway (say Goldman and others...)



And a further 20% surge in copper (taking us over $3/lb)...



Onwards and upwards...?

Meanwhile, will the Astor judgement provide another buying opportunity? (Buy/Sell on rumour...Sell/Buy on fact), depending which way it goes? Surely any result that looks favourable will see these surge again...

E.G. Why has there been so much bidding for stock in size (suggesting a big Buyer), IN ADVANCE OF the Astor case unless the Buyer is either confident of the outcome or is using the pre-judgement 'shakeout' to build up a holding...?

AIMHO as usual....

[husbod] 27/1/2017 11:02

So that 12p is actually equivalent to less than 3.5p or in post consolidation terms about 103p. So I'm in profit! er not exactly but it just shows how much the previous regime messed around.

Btw charlieeee thanks for mentioning SAR on the SLP site. It looks an interesting way of losing money or making a great deal of it.

[cufes2] 27/1/2017 10:58

Tedoby2

Any news about your big buyer you told us about last year . . .

[charlieeee] 27/1/2017 10:54

It is amazing when the facts are entirely wrong.

In 2013 (post the last of the regular equity placings) there were approximately 1 billion shares in issue (1,046,275,252 to be precise)

Pre consolidation, that had ballooned to 3.5 billion, ie it had increased by a factor of 2.5 times or 250% and your share of the mine is now 2/7 of what it was previously.

Given that in the meantime the mine was brought back into production, such a negative comparison seems a bit pointless: it would be 100% of nothing by now were it not for AL's efforts and expertise.

[tedoby2] 27/1/2017 10:38

LLB that's amazing when you look at it like that - considering we were looking at a $250m Capex budget to finance at one stage!!

What Alberto's achieved since he came in that respect is just remarkable in my view.

GLA

[husbod] 27/1/2017 10:35

Cheers LLB. As I'm not much good at figures are you able to advise what that 12p is worth given that dilution. As I managed to buy some at around 12p (and above) it would be nice to know that in real terms I don't have to look at £3.60 to get back to 12p worth if you see what I mean!

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 27/1/2017 10:25

[edit] incorrect data, more speed and less haste required..!

[husbod] 27/1/2017 10:07

Can you remind me Acamas, or anyone else, whether, when we were that heady 12p we had the same number of shares in issue (allowing for the consolidation) or has there been any dilution since.

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 27/1/2017 09:06

That's true enough Acamas, but it just doesn't make sense that we might be worth any less MCap than the post consolidation price 2 years ago of 142.5p, we didn't even have the expanded plant or capacity then, hadn't made an ounce of Copper or concentrate, the original terms or potential 'debt' with Astor were in place.., and then there's the time added value for already having the plant ready to go now..

Since consolidation we have a +$100M new working plant, $10M of concentrate in stock, and +$10M cash in the Till from Nov/Dec/Jan sales..

The downside to the court case ruling should all be built into the share price @ 142.5p as that's where we were before.. @ 150p we are massively undervalued IMO, still the same @ 250p..!..