Atalaya Mining Share Discussion Threads

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 01/2/2017 10:19

Very interesting indeed Lango, as it plays out.., it seems the company had many debt financing options, but turned away from that route at every opportunity, opting for bridging loan/convertible loan notes, instead of debt, so this possible workaround was long known to the BOD (see Mr O's notes from Monday)..

So what do you think is Traf's ultimate goal here post court case..?, to try and buy out the other II's XGC/Orion and take PRT for themselves..? it would make sense for them to try and do that given the logistics and alignment with their other local projects..

[langostino] 01/2/2017 09:26

IMO one of the reasons Traf never made a clean takeover was they didn’t want the Astor deal. Instead they paid 9/270p for their holding (which some then assumed was so cheap there had to be an escalation clause!). They then used their strong financial position to fund development of the mine in a way that did not trigger repayment of the Astor/Emed arrangement made amicably and in good faith. At the same time they succeeded in warning off all potential predators which put a lid on the share price at well below the level of early entry investors. Realising that Trafigura had no intention of making good on the deal, Astor took the only course possible. What will be interesting is to see whether ‘settlement217; in whatever form it comes will reveal Trafigura’s endgame. Happy to watch from the sidelines as this murky tale moves towards its denouement. That old BW stooge got a few things right amidst all the nonsense and paranoia.

[jwafc] 31/1/2017 21:54

The joys of AIM. The price will only move when someone significant will profit.

[head gardener] 31/1/2017 20:23

Copper at 2 .72 and a stunning share price of sweet F..All, why is this, please elucidate.

[waterloo01] 31/1/2017 19:38

Didn't make it unfortunately.

[iankn73] 31/1/2017 19:19

I'm sure waterloo stated that he might appear at the hearing.

In the meantime: Copper over $2.72 & Silver up 2.5% today @ $17.57

IF the court case works in our favour watch this pop.

[vatnabrekk] 31/1/2017 17:04

Mr Onions said he was unable to attend today, and was hoping someone else might be able to go.

How many days is this expected to go on for?

[husbod] 31/1/2017 16:47

No doubt Mr Onions who, for some unknown reason has deserted us, will post on the other site.

Wasn't one of us hoping to go on day 2 or was it day 3?

[shortarm] 31/1/2017 15:25

No one writing up the court transcript today?

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 31/1/2017 11:07

#SBT, the companies position will be to start out on the basis of not owing anything, but as it unfolds, negotiate somewhere in the middle ground, you can't start bargaining from the middle and end up in the same place, it's all a bit cat and mouse, but the share price will no doubt tell us before the RNS does as to the resulting ruling/renegotiated settlement being favourable or not..!

#Husbod, very interesting to read your example of a contract oversight, not giving the protection it was designed to do...

Copper heading towards $2.72/lb, share price like a coiled spring on a positive ruling or new agreement..!

[superbobtaylor] 31/1/2017 10:32

@Pawsche

What you say makes sense but the company stated in their RNS dated 02 November 2015

"there is significant doubt concerning the legal obligation on the Company to pay any of the Deferred Consideration."

The explicitly define the "Deferred Consideration" as:

"cash settlement of €53 million (including consideration for the assignment of loans of €9,116,617.30 owed to companies related to MRI incurred in relation to the operation of Proyecto Riotinto) and up to a further €15,900,000 depending upon the price of copper."

The word "any" would indicate that like they are arguing that none is due? They are not clear about when the money (if ever!) would be due. Maybe this is all just a starting point for the negotiation, who knows.

SBT

[pawsche] 31/1/2017 10:11

@LLB,

Husbod has beaten me to it... :-) There's nothing to stop them reaching a settlement during the hearing, equally post judgement there's nothing to stop the winning party from renegociating the deal if it wants to be magnanimous or sees advantage in it.

ATYM are certainly going to have to pay Astor some serious money anyway. Your "3-point" outline (30 Jan '17 - 19:20 - 5195) covers the "triggers" for payment and, as I see it, only the first clause (ie "senior debt" etc) is in dispute - as you correctly identify because of the "and" linking the two subclauses - items 2 and 3 look pretty unequivocal to me, so they're really only arguing over the "trivial" sum of EUR 17,533,382.70. :-)

IMHO of course.

[shortarm] 31/1/2017 10:05

And while we're all thinking about the court case copper is back over 2.70.....

[husbod] 31/1/2017 09:50

LLB - parties can agree anything at any time. A judgement is enforceable through the courts but there is nothing to prevent the winning party from agreeing to vary it if, for example, it facilitates agreement over other issues.

So, if we win we could use that judgement to offer Astor some of the money in exchange for a better deal on the other matters.

In other words the judgement in this case could be very important to us in materially simplifying the project/our balance sheet.

[rougepierre] 31/1/2017 09:15

Have just read MrOs very helpful transcript...

Three conclusions seem to me...

We surely have some level of liability to Astor at some stage and no later than the end of the mine. This case seems to be primarily about the trigger...

Thecsmart thing is to negotiate a one off settlement...look at AIM companies like CHL where disputes dragged on for years...very damaging...

Trafigura is clearly the hand rocking the cradle and it looks like they have had predatory motives in the past...

AIMHO as usual...

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 31/1/2017 08:54

So the mining union are holding the company to ransom and want a 7% salary hike, + a $39,000 bonus per worker... only 2 months after Copper went over $2.00/lb, I'm in the wrong job..!

#Pawsche, on legal proceedings, can the 2 parties bang heads at any point during the trial after hours and come to a re negotiated settlement..? presumably after the judgement it's too late, as that will be legally binding and no deal can be done to drop it..?

Mr O, is posting on LSE and was in court yesterday taking notes..

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 30/1/2017 19:20

#Husbod, the original agreement was between EMED/MRI/Astor back in 01.10.2008.. when HAA restructured the company / bought the mine from them, Trafigura didn't come into the mix until summer 2014 doing their due diligence before buying their equity in 2015, at the same time as Orion/XGC..

Note the terms say AND, not either / or, also 'Senior debt finance' / guarantee facilities, (neither of which have been triggered) these are the lynchpins of our case, whether this was a master stroke by HAA in the early days, or we just got lucky with the terms/oversight, we're about to find out..!

Further deferred consideration totalling up to EUR43,883,382.70 (�35,018,938) is to be paid by the EMED Group on the occurrence of the following events
* EUR17,533,382.70 (�13,991,638) when both (a) the authorisation from the Junta de Andalucia to restart mining activities in the Rio Tinto Project has been granted AND (b) EMED Tartessus or another company in the EMED Group has secured senior debt finance and guarantee facilities for a sum sufficient for the acquisition and re-start of mining operations at the Project. These milestones will effectively remain at the discretion of the Company and will not in practice be triggered until approval from the Company's shareholders has been received for the restart;
* EUR13,175,000 (�10,513,650) within 20 business days following the first anniversary of the restart of mining activities at a level of 400,000 mt/month production of ore processing ("Restart"); and
* EUR13,175,000 (�10,513,650) within 20 business days following the second anniversary of Restart.

[husbod] 30/1/2017 18:56

I hope I am too waterloo but I am sure that you know as well as i do that there is no certainty in litigation. And judges can arrive at the most imaginative of decisions, to put it politely.
I believe in fairness by the way, just not in this case!

[waterloo01] 30/1/2017 18:33

If there was no disagreement there would not be a need for a court case. As a holder I hope you are right.

[husbod] 30/1/2017 18:29

I've mentioned before a situation in my part of the world where there two mines in direct competition with each other
One bought the other out on the basis of a small cash down payment with the large balance being payable by way of a royalty based on the tonnage subsequently mined. Sadly for the seller its solicitors failed to include a minimum annual tonnage so the buyer just closed the mine and wiped out a competitor for peanuts.
That's why you have lawyers - to ensure your interests are protected. That's also why lawyers pay a large sum each year for professional indemnity insurance
Some of you seem to be suggesting that in that case the judge should have varied the agreement to protect the buyer from his own incompetence.
There must be a limit to judicial interference in an agreement freely entered into between two companies and I see no reason why our contract should not be construed literally.Otherwise we might as well all be incompetent and rely on a judge to decide what we actually meant. Of course both parties could well disagree about what was actually meant and I am sure Traf (who if they are as ruthless as some here suggest) will say that they 100% meant that the repayment was only supposed to be triggered in the event of our raising senior debt.
Another point - given Traf's apparent reputation shouldn't Astor and their lawyers have been doubly or triply careful that the agreement was absolutely watertight, covered all contingencies and didn't omit the blindingly obvious..............m'lud.

[acamas] 30/1/2017 18:13

waterloo01,

Despite what has been posted on this Board I fail to see how a Judge can read a legal contract and then act as the missing e&oe. part of the contract. If it is not there then he cannot give it. He has to make his decision on the wording of the contract that both parties signed and Trafs very expensive mouthpiece will pile drive that home in The Court imo

[head gardener] 30/1/2017 17:58

If the share consolidation had never taken place guess where the share price might have been, 15p.....

[waterloo01] 30/1/2017 17:58

Acamas, that is certainly the company position.

[langostino] 30/1/2017 17:55

This is the last gasp of an old battle between Trafigura and Marc Rich(deceased), reincarnated as Astor for control of the mine. As shareholders be careful what you wish for.