Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[monkeymagic3] 24/4/2014 20:51

A fact?

IOF?

Are you on the right thread?

[monty panesar] 24/4/2014 20:09

It is a fact IOF have always issued stock above market price ever since they first listed.

[cyberbub] 24/4/2014 20:08

Big deal robot, 2million quid at 15p would still only be 12m shares, a 10% dilution. Frustrating if it happens and shouldnt be/have been necessary, but by no means disastrous, if it ensures that the co can get through to the post-fracking season in the autumn. That's only 6 or 7 months away.I hasten to add that I have no knowledge of any placing as such. With any luck Lance will be able to get a loan or overdraft of some sort instead.My point is that as long as its no more than a couple of mill then it will not harm the company long-term.All IMO NAI

[bad robot] 24/4/2014 20:01

I say 15p early morning

[dcgray21] 24/4/2014 19:58

Results due tomorrow . They should have the books closed for 1Q14 and financial projections / cash flows updated off 400mT so would be good to see some guidance of this on top of 31/12 exit position. As repeatedly mentioned , clarification of cash position key but whether last few days since the production clarification debacle has give them enough time to consider / clarify funding options is anyone's guess . What I am sure of is a Wolf on Wall Street inspired mr B talking to IOF armed with a few selective choices of candles should be enough to focus the BoD's minds

[webster34] 24/4/2014 19:56

ammons 24 Apr'14 - 19:46 - 19921 of 19923 0 0

Fingers crossed the company have been able to arrange a bridging loan to announce tommorow. I will be sitting on the throne with plenty of loo roll handy(plus my lap top) at 6.59am tommorow........... Has news of funding leaked, hence the 20% odd rise today or is it a half dead cat bounce?
..........
Just a full dead cat bounce

[cyberbub] 24/4/2014 19:50

I dont have a problem with them raising a couple of mill at say 20p if thats whats needed to tide them over until EOY. I see no obvious reason to raise huge amounts of cash, if they can hit their 400mt target. Just cut back drastically on any admin and operational expenditure they can, and let IO1 and IO2 be the breadwinners, plus anything else they can get through IO3-5 will be a bonus. Lance has clearly come back because within 2 weeks we have finally had some honesty - and that is very heartening IMO...NAI

[ammons] 24/4/2014 19:46

Fingers crossed the company have been able to arrange a bridging loan to announce tommorow. I will be sitting on the throne with plenty of loo roll handy(plus my lap top) at 6.59am tommorow........... Has news of funding leaked, hence the 20% odd rise today or is it a half dead cat bounce?

[monkeymagic3] 24/4/2014 19:35

Guesses on the content of next holdings disclosure from Mr Aaron Banks?

Shouldn't be too difficult.

[webster34] 24/4/2014 19:32

cash n card
Where are you. Please give us your views on IOF

[monkeymagic3] 24/4/2014 19:22

dewtrader 24 Apr'14 - 18:09 - 19915 of 19917 1 0

will it need rescue fundraise


Seems inevitable.

[bobsworth] 24/4/2014 19:13

Thanks SG for all your digging.

[dcgray21] 24/4/2014 19:08

Thanks SG . Let's hope the FD is worth his salt . Hadn't he worked with Lanz in the past . Let's hope none of that rubbed off on him ..

[dewtrader] 24/4/2014 18:09

will it need rescue fundraise

[superg1] 24/4/2014 18:03

Cosayach cont. I also heard a rumour that someone was encroaching on SQMs acreage stealing iodine etc.

In short it seems Cosayach are all over SQM land and SQM are doing there best to stop them.

So that's a $100m civil case (probably the cash worry)

Cos production is in fact on SQM leases (perhaps that is the supreme court listings I keep finding, latest one dated today).

Oh and not forgetting the people trafficking investigation against the Cosayach owner that may still be current.

There was me thinking the 150 litre per second rule would damage them. A bit of digging and it looks pretty dire for Cosayach

From Dec 2013 Spanish translation so it reads a bit odd.

(Financial Daily) A new battle between SQM and NX One of Peine, society nonmetallic mining Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ovalle, is fought these days now before the Constitutional Court (TC), MCS is asking the TC action inapplicability with the Llano looking mensurar belongings 519 1 to 10, which are now superimposed on the already constituted by the Errazuriz Group (named 295 East 1 to 20) in the Salar de Atacama.

The Chilean Mining Code requires that firms have to mensurar belongings after 15 months since the court filed its manifestation, SQM process that is due this February 20.

According to experts, SQM confident that if the TC will extend the time allowed by law for mensurar, be sufficient time to clear their favor parallel lawsuit filed in the First District Court of Calama against NX for revocation of the belongings in conflict (this because according to the presentation to the TC, the Errazuriz have obtained fraudulently and intentionally so), and so can measure and exercise SQM ownership of such property.

Background of the case

The beginning of the conflict dates back to 2009 when SQM filed a lawsuit in the 2nd Civil Court of Calama against NX for revocation of these belongings totaling about 22 thousand hectares.

According to the complaint, indictment expiration NX implied that did not meet all the requirements for the owner, because they lacked measurable levels and proceedings within the time limits set by law. The lawsuit was dismissed by the court of Calama, so SQM, went to the Court of Appeals of Antofagasta to revoke the ruling, which occurred.

Given this, NX appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the ruling of the court of Antofagasta and upheld the first decision of the court of Calama and determined that NX is the owner of the property. With this result, NX sued in 82 cases against the expert and against those responsible in court accusing assurance of Calama sobremensura properties worth U.S. $ 360 million, because that is currently pending.

Meanwhile, SQM-regardless of the resolution and gave the Supreme Court-legal attacks with a new offensive, this time calling for the revocation, if not invalid.

Contested points

1 Article 27 of the Mining Code which provides that "On grantable substances existing in land covered by a mining lease can not become another. The judge shall ensure compliance with this prohibition. "

2 Article 4, paragraph 2 of Law No. 18.097, which provides that "on grantable substances existing in the same land area can not become more of a mining concession."

3 Article 78 incisions 1 Mining Code which states that "within fifteen months from the date of the filing of the statement to the court, the owner, or any of them, shall, in three ejemplres, the minutes and cadastral surveys of group membership or belongings. "

4 Article 73 paragraph 1 of the Code of Mining, which states that "The engineer or expert shall not in any measurable belongings cover with case numbers."

[monkeymagic3] 24/4/2014 17:49

CENSORSHIPS FATAL FLAW

"Censorship lingers on, not only keeping the people from knowing the truth about their own situation but keeping the brittle leadership from facing what is really going on."

[superg1] 24/4/2014 17:39

I also asked re who is causing the price chaos and it's thought to be Cosayach with suspected cash problems. No meat on the bones as to why but rumours are around that Cosayach are, or may be facing cash issues.

I thought I'd do a bit of digging today to see what I could turn up. :-)

The first point is that Cosayach have been appearing on the Supreme court listings for months, I have no idea why and haven't got to the bottom of the Chile coding system against their name (P15).

I have however found something interesting under the owner of Cosayach as below. The case has been going on for some time and ended up as a civil case in 2012 with this report from May 2013. Francisco is the Cosayach owner. The supreme court gets a mention. The latter part covering the civil action may or may not be why there is pending doom at Cosayach.

Such matters drag on and as the report is from May 13 it could well be that Francisco after all the troubles facing Cosayach in 2011 has an uppercut coming right on the point of his chin.

As said I think Cosayach are on around 3500 mt, I'll keep digging



After little more than two years of trial, on Monday the First Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Inversiones Errazuriz SA (Inverraz), a company linked to businessman Francisco Javier Errazuriz Talavera, against bankruptcy requested by the bank German KfW (KfW).

Ministers Guillermo Silva, Juan Eduardo Fuentes, Carlos Cerda (alternate) and Attorney Jorge Baraona ratified the decisions of the Court of Appeals of Santiago and the Third Civil Court. The latter decreed the bankruptcy of the company in March 2011.

The case dates back to December 2005 when KfW initiated arbitration proceedings in the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris against Inverraz. In December 2007, the International Court of Arbitration Inverraz sentenced to pay $ 59.7 million, which for interest and court costs today would be around U.S. $ 100 million. KfW is represented by attorney Gerardo Ovalle, the Yrarrázaval, Ruiz-Tagle, Goldenberg, Lagos & Silva study.

Inverraz was the parent's investment group led Errazuriz today and not have assets.

According Ovalle said, in 2012 the applicants brought civil action against the Errazuriz family and two company executives, by the transfer of assets to other companies Inverraz, achieving two freezing assets of the firm: a land located Vitacura with The Tranqueras and another off Santiago.

Sources pointed out that the Court of Appeals would be close to failure with respect to the protective order, then it was appealed in the first instance. This could happen in late May.

[microcline] 24/4/2014 17:28

karmastuartra

superg1 - 23 Apr 2014 - 11:09:37 - 19570 of 19910

[superg1] 24/4/2014 17:25

dcgray

Basic numpty errors that cost a lot EG I understand at io2 some pillock took out some features which help control residues, simple replacement and servicing fixes that

But in financing I did ask if they felt the need to go that way, did they consider they have the backers under all the recent circs. The answer was a strong yes, but with a belief they could probably squeeze through without, but no one likes uncertainty so imo sort that out one way or another and let's move on.

[monkeymagic3] 24/4/2014 17:08

superg1 24 Apr'14 - 16:42 - 19901 of 19907 0 3

MM3

I would hope there will be no voting of that type needed, the AGM should be some way off.


"Hope" isnt a strategy I now subscribe to.

[oilyrag] 24/4/2014 17:04

Yep its there, thanks.

[iofra] 24/4/2014 17:01

oilyrag:
have you checked here:

[oilyrag] 24/4/2014 16:59

Sorry to see the recent fall in this one. Have followed it for some time now. I took my first holding here late this afternoon. Strangley my trade, not a large one hasn't shown up yet.