Horizonte Minerals Share Discussion Threads

[jaknife] 03/12/2023 18:33

strow,

"Pointless continuing that debate with you as you are basically stating that if you have money then it is above ethics and principles and what is “right”.
You clearly feel for you that is the case so let’s hope that you never have money hey-lol"


I fear that you don't understand how weak your negotiating position is. Did you not read the 14 November RNS?

"As of 10 November 2023, the Araguaia Project had total liquidity sources of US$169 million comprised of US$131 million undrawn on the Senior Debt Facility (subject to satisfying drawdown conditions) and a cash position of US$38 million which should provide sufficient working capital to around mid-December 2023 unless there are positive outcomes from conversations with suppliers, other cash preserving measures, or other financing solutions, which if successful should provide sufficient working capital until late Q1 24."

[my emphasis]

From:

The clear implication is that Horizonte will be insolvent at the end of Q1 24. *IF* the project is saved (and that is far from certain) and *IF* it's not saved until AFTER the end of Q1 24 then whomever saves it will be negotiating with the administrator rather than the current directors/shareholders.

JakNife

[strow] 03/12/2023 17:05

What I am interested in is why all you guys are so intense and interested yourselves.There is clearly only one answer and that is you are either short or want to invest at a lower price still.It is totally obvious that it isn't out of concern or compassion for those that you see making mistakes.I just couldn't do this guys and you and I are just worlds apart.It is nice to make money that is not at others expense but not nice to be consumed by it when it is

[stansmith1] 03/12/2023 17:03

strowyou have been told as much on lse several times over and you refused to speak to them too, its pointless for anyone with a different view to talk to you...you are though conversing with nutjobs and rampers on lse...this is a hard watch i must say, i really hope you get much luckier than you deserve

[strow] 03/12/2023 16:23

Pointless continuing that debate with you as you are basically stating that if you have money then it is above ethics and principles and what is "right".You clearly feel for you that is the case so let's hope that you never have money hey-lol

[stansmith1] 03/12/2023 16:22

strowim starting to understand where you are coming from now...what i would say is those suggesting the outcomes that you dont think possible/likely are not suggesting them to be negative for the sake of it, it is due to seeing this movie before...they are not stealing anything and there is nothing to be policed....hzm mgmt diluted and diluted until they could dilute no more and thats it

[jaknife] 03/12/2023 16:14

strow,

"All of us can steal other people’s things if we so wish and you could argue that that is regulated through the police in this country but most of us would not do that even given a faceless opportunity."

The existing business in its current form is close to worthless, it's a half-built mine in the middle of nowhere that's saddled with masses of debt that's hoping to mine a metal whose price has fallen 45% in the last year alone.

Do you have $250m to save the project? No, you don't even understand the basic numbers, basic UK corporate law or the economics of the project, as you've consistently displayed for a number of months.

The current situation is very simply to summarise: *IF* the project is salvageable (and that is far from certain) then whoever puts up the $250m to save the project will dictate the terms on which the project is saved. That's not "stealing", that's just plain simple economics. If you disagree then go and find $250m first AND THEN go and argue with La Mancha.

JakNife

[strow] 03/12/2023 16:10

It seems that what we have now come down to discussing is whether these 3 cornerstone investors will engineer a situation where they can steal private investors equity because that's what it would be there being so many other possible ways of doing things.What you are all implying on here as well as many previously implying that even the old board was dishonest is that our three cornerstone investors are also dishonest and that is what is happening to its point of finality.

[strow] 03/12/2023 15:48

I don't know but I think the previous board would probably have had to go due to that being a trust issue and condition of the banks rather than some underhand plan to gain everything.Why would any investors ever trust these people ever again if that was the case.Like getting into relationships with people you know are cheats and will continue to be so.I think La Mancha are protecting their investment thus far but we will obviously find out in due course

[dead duck resources] 03/12/2023 15:42

LM's and Orion's equity is no longer considerable, having been destroyed by HZM mgmt.
Let's run through their positions,

La Mancha
negligible equity worth $6m, $15M unsecured CLN
Aim: will work with lenders to try to preserve CLN value, some effort to keep listing

Glencore
negligible equity worth $5m, 10-year 100% offtake agreement
Aim: renegotiate offtake agreement in administration scenario, no concern with equity

Orion
negligible equity worth $3m, $50M unsecured CLN, 3% royalty (at license level not plc)
Aim: will follow La Mancha's lead to preserve CLN value, no real concern about equity

[strow] 03/12/2023 15:42

The point being made Raymund is that they may favour a complete reload of equity on their own terms so they hold it all.It's definitely very underhand and would be bordering on dishonest to do that as there frankly is absolutely no need for them to do that.It would be a gamble for them to do that having wiped out hundreds of millions of their own money gambling on future success and productivity of the assets whilst being responsible for almost a $billionof combined capital and debt to replace at that point

[jaknife] 03/12/2023 15:42

strow,

"So you favour the cornerstones wiping out their own equity clearly"

I would suggest that you go away and do some basic maths. You need to work out which is the better option for the Key Shareholders:

A. Invest $250m into the existing listed company to take a 97.5% stake leaving retail shareholders with a 2.5% stake.

OR

B. Invest $250m into a NewCo that takes a 100% stake leaving retail shareholders with nothing.

If you come back and say anything other than option B then I'm afraid that you will fail this test. And yes, that means that "the cornerstones" would happily wipe out their own existing equity.

JakNife

[raymund] 03/12/2023 15:29

Strow, I cannot see why La Mancha and Orion would destroy their considerable equity when the eventual finance required must lie in their gift, I wonder how much could be raised by offtake at current Ni price?

[strow] 03/12/2023 14:03

So you favour the cornerstones wiping out their own equity clearly

[stansmith1] 03/12/2023 13:54

jaknifethanks, thats interesting, food for thought if you are a holder...

[jaknife] 03/12/2023 13:01

stansmith1,

"why would they leave anything on the table for current shareholders?"

This is a really good question to ask because existing shareholders need to work out what exactly they have to offer. Traditionally this boils down to two items:

1. Retaining the existing share quote,
2. Cooperation, which could make any "process" materially smoother (eg assistance in avoiding breaches of contract, events of default, etc).

In this case 2 is pretty weak because the expectation is that the key shareholders probably have more than enough votes between them to pass 50% resolutions.

On 1, it's always been the case historically that *IF* the major shareholders want to retain the existing share quote then they need to incentivise existing shareholders to vote in favour of a 75% shareholder resolution so that a material number of additional shares can be freely issued.

So the key question is: "Do key shareholders want to retain the existing quote"? *IF* that's the case then how much are they prepared to pay shareholders in order to retain that quote. In that respect I would note:

(i) the amount that the key shareholders might be prepared to pay should be compared to the alternative cost of them simply wiping out shareholders and then relisting. At the max that's not going to be more than about £5m in legal fees.

(ii) I deliberately wrote the word "historically" above. There has been a change in legislation in the UK which has yet to be fully tested in circumstances like this (and I doubt that HZM would want to waste the money being the test case). The change is the "Restructuring Plan", of which you can read more here:



There's a lot of risk and uncertainty as well as legal costs associated with a "Restructuring Plan" and so it's incredibly unlikely that HZM would want to go down that route. But if they did, and won, then they could retain the quote and wipe out existing shareholders.

After all that waffle the conclusion is that *IF* the key shareholders wanted to retain the existing share quote then they will need to "bribe" existing shareholders to vote in favour of a 75% resolution. Such "bribe" needs to be around about £5m and that equates to about 2p a share, which is exactly what ScepticalInvestor suggested.

Of course if the key shareholders don't want the quote then the existing shares are close to worthless.

JakNife

[stansmith1] 03/12/2023 10:19

scepticalwhy would they leave anything on the table for current shareholders?

[scepticalinvestor] 03/12/2023 07:26

Retail punters will likely be left with nothimg, sad to say. I reckon to get funding through a placing will need to be at max 2pAimhoGood luck

[scepticalinvestor] 03/12/2023 07:21

Another bargepole aim resources stock.

[stansmith1] 02/12/2023 13:59

strowi see some reality is finding its way in to your thinking, you're almost there

[twigs3] 01/12/2023 12:33

HZM is just a dream IMO now, not sure anything will be pleasant, what would a raise at 10p look like for the share price? It won’t be done on just loans that’s for sure. Oh well I will keep dreaming of £1.50 again 🤣

[strow] 01/12/2023 12:08

The rub is conspiracy or no conspiracy If it's the former then not great They have all the funds that are needed to make this happen in a pleasant way for everyone But will they ?I hope so

[twigs3] 01/12/2023 11:58

Was never out

[strow] 01/12/2023 11:22

Our man ?You back in now or something ?