Atalaya Mining Share Discussion Threads

[reba] 02/2/2017 21:15

Well done Waterloo for taking the time and effort to go to the hearing and reporting back to us. All credit to you. Thanks

[cufes2] 02/2/2017 20:25

Unfortunately I'm not a legal expert unlike some of the posters on here it would seem SBT and so I've nothing to add . . . However, I do think people who claimed to be in the know and have the ear of senior management should be accountable . . . We've been down this route before with the likes of bookworm and stockready IMHO . . .

[iankn73] 02/2/2017 19:13

Very much appreciate the effort made to attend court and sharing your thoughts. Thanks waterloo01

Looking forward to this RNS now.

[spcecks] 02/2/2017 19:10

Waterloo a big thanks very much appreciated.

[lanty33] 02/2/2017 19:07

Waterloo1. I echo the plaudits you deserve!

THANK YOU.

l33

[superbobtaylor] 02/2/2017 18:59

Fooldgold I think you have made your point, Another record now maybe?

How about some thoughts on the court case?

SBT

[rich1e] 02/2/2017 18:54

Thank you waterloo01.

[hectorp] 02/2/2017 18:49

This looks to be a masterly place to be holding long.

[scargs] 02/2/2017 18:47

Waterloo01

A very sincere thank you for firstly making the effort to attend and secondly for sharing your thoughts and interpretations on the final day of the case.

I look forward now to a RNS from the Company regarding when the result is likely to be announced and I also look forward to reading the actual decision.

Glad to know that Alberto appeared to be happy about how the last four days have gone.

Once again Waterloo01 a big thank you.

Scargs

[cufes2] 02/2/2017 18:30

Tedoby2

Still no response about your claims of a large buyer last year that has still not materialised . . . I thought you were in the know . . .

[acamas] 02/2/2017 18:19

waterloo01,

Thanks for your efforts.

I bet the judge did not warm to hearing the word "oversight" maybe a tut tut followed by a thought of placing them in a corner with a dunces hat on their head. They are not the most tolerant people to foolish actions imo

[waterloo01] 02/2/2017 18:01

I'd say my pleasure but most was rather tedious. Alberto seemed happy.

A few tasters from the judge (not verbatim) 'what was the point of putting in debt financing', why didn't they (Astor) make it based on restart', 'why was equity left out', Astor got shares as part of the deal, was it them that didn't want dilution', 'a professional agreement by experienced lawyers and put in senior debt only'.(prosecution didn't have many answers to those points from the judge, just said it was an 'oversight')

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 02/2/2017 17:47

Thanks for your insights waterloo01, and making the effort to get in there and taking notes.

Sounds very much to me like the original goal was not to sidestep the $53M debt, but to win the key point on the triggering of the terms, and by doing so enable a renegotiation of new terms that will work best for ATYM and to better build the companies position.

The overall result will doubtless involve all 3 parts, (1) >$3.00 Copper deferred payment, (2) the brokerage fees/DMT and (3) the payment terms of the $53M, all in all it puts us back in control, and will be beneficial to the company (LOM) and share price .

I can't see us winning on point (1), but it will be used as a bargaining tool for the rest, and to average $3.00 copper or more over 12 months is a long way off, if we do, happy days and we pay it out of profits anyhow.

I expect a sensible ruling, and if Astor lose this key trigger point then they will have to pay our costs too as they bought the case to court..[edit], oversights can be costly waterloo01..!

I don't see any downside for us now, just clarification, new payment terms, no costs, no damages, and we're away.. :o)

[tedoby2] 02/2/2017 17:44

Excellent account waterloo!

Great stuff so a huge thanks from me.

GLA

[rougepierre] 02/2/2017 17:42

If he does?

Surely if there is no trigger then it only has to be paid by the end of LOM....?

AIMHO as usual...

[superbobtaylor] 02/2/2017 17:39

Thank you very much Waterloo01.

If the judge won't write it off and he does not think it is due to paid already then I wonder how he will come to a judgement on when payment should start?

SBT

[waterloo01] 02/2/2017 17:27

I can't be bothered with a long verbatim note, but might add some colour later, so in short, both sides put closing arguments, with a number of telling interjections from the judge. Our recent discussion is not far off the mark.

I'm fairly sure the judge, who seems wholly rational, will repeat what was said in open court, that he's not about to re write a contract that expensive lawyers spend a lot of time drawing up. So the fact that both parts of the terms were not met, and the payment due, is in my opinion likely to stand. No trigger. Alberto did an excellent job yesterday in explaining how senior debt was not available on terms that wouldn't have crushed the company (and it was close to that at the end of 2014), and as such made every 'reasonable endeavour'. Astor tried to say that it was available via Orion and later Traf, but I think the team did a good job of batting that one away. I suspect the judge agrees, but will be a key point to win.

I also don't think the judge will grant Astor any damages, as in effect it's their own fault for drawing up a flawed contract.

ATYM are also arguing that the deferred sum should in effect be written off by Astor. Think they are on much shakier ground on that score, and the judge certainly appeared a lot less keen on granting them that point.

If I'm right, then I expect we will be in negotiations with Astor, post judgement re when we pay (and that will be on our terms). LOM would be good but if they can alter some of the other 'terms', all the better.

Whatever, being free of Astor will be a win in itself.

[rougepierre] 02/2/2017 17:24

Right On!

$3 in sight....

[rougepierre] 02/2/2017 16:43

Well done and thank you waterloo...look forward to your summary.

[waterloo01] 02/2/2017 16:14

Just back from court. Will write up when I have time. I now better understand both sides and a view of where the judge is coming from. Unlikely to get result for a couple of weeks (they will RNS when the judge gives them an indication of how long he will take).

[rougepierre] 02/2/2017 10:39

Hopefully waterloo...certainly AL has seemed very relaxed and positive...

Meanwhile, apart from copper staying above $2.70, a raft of buys are being shown as sells on LSE because they are below the 'mid-price'...everything at 153 and above is a Buy...there seems to be no shortage of appetite, not just from what may be a big buyer...?

Good post by ted on LSE as well as Mr O's helpful feedback...

Cheers

[waterloo01] 02/2/2017 09:22

Rouge, if we lost, even with damages we would owe about 20m euro now and then 5 years of 7-8m euros. With the grant of 8m overdue (and possibly tied in) plus the cash from sales and the cash savings made by deferring supplier payments, I would have thought we could just pay up without equity nor loans.

[rougepierre] 02/2/2017 09:00

Has anybody thought through that if the judgement didnt go our way there would be nothing to stop us raising senior debt, surely at far better terms now we are a profitable mine...? Indeed why not incorporate that permission in the settlement anyhow...then we could borrow the money to pay Astor....;-)

AIMHO as usual...

[acamas] 02/2/2017 08:26

But will the judge give an indication of when judgement will be made? Such as by the end of this month, or will we be left dangling

[waterloo01] 02/2/2017 07:52

Summing up this AM although I doubt we'll get a judgement this week.