Oxus Gold Share Discussion Threads

[festario] 25/11/2015 23:57

Paps, what happened to free speech? I take it you're not married then?

[papillon] 25/11/2015 23:50

With all due respect, dave, you would be rather silly not to imagine the likely Uzbek defence to OXS's claim. After all the arbitration panel will hear both sides of the argument. They will hear OXS's claim outlined and the Uzbeks defence. At the moment, dave, you are only imagining the OXS case. I always prefer to hear both sides of the argument. Unfortunately I'm not a member of the arbitration panel so I have to guess the Uzbeks likely defence.

I've invested my own money in OXS shares. Not a big sum compared to some on this bb, but I wouldn't want to lose it!! It's MY money, not yours, so I don't like you telling me how I should be thinking! That's why I take off my blinkers and try to understand both sides of the argument.

[dave444] 25/11/2015 22:55

Pap - are you an Uzbek agent in disguise?

[kcowe] 25/11/2015 22:00

Realistic post pap..... your supposition of 200 to 400 mill does measure up to a lowly share price we now have.... using the lower of the figures would represent gross price of 19p a share before legal costs .. no wonder we are where we are.

[papillon] 25/11/2015 21:49

"The Chinese approach was a fire sale"

From the interim results RNS dated 16/9/09 OXS state the following:

"The Group continues to take measures to preserve cash until such time as further funding is obtained and to address the items referred to by the auditors as an emphasis of matter relating to going concern in the audited accounts to 31 December 2008"

I don't know about "fire sale", but OXS were definitely strapped for cash as the "going concern" comment shows.

Also from that RNS dated 16/9/09 is the following:

"Negotiations with a major Chinese contracting and financing group in respect of the financing of AGF's underground sulphide mine continue to progress and first underground production is still targeted to take place during H2 2011, subject to the availability of finance."

Which begs the question, wulber, would the mine have produced as much gold as it has if OXS had still been involved in the 50/50 JV? Has the mine produced the gold over the last 4 years specifically because the Uzbeks confiscated OXS's 50% stake and provided the finance for the mine?

I can't see any reason why OXS will receive compensation for the bulk of the gold produced over the last 4 years. I'm looking at an award of US$300m with a range of US$200m-US$400m

[wulber] 25/11/2015 21:28

PapillonDifficult to call I know.Posters estimates depend on whether their glass is half empty or half full. Been trying to keep myself grounded with my guestimate and can see that the top end E&Y figure plus interest - $50 mn and then take 1/3.The Chinese approach was a fire sale and since then we have had 4 years of production at EDF and don't forget Khandiza would also be producing.

[papillon] 25/11/2015 21:09

If I was a lawyer representing the case for the Uzbek defendants, wulber and they lost the case, I would use that OXS RNS dated 7/1/10 as the reason for limiting any award to OXS to be based on the US$185m offer for 72% of OXS from the Chinese, which was acceptable to the OXS BoD.

That's the reason why I can see the award to OXS being around US$300m (including interest).

Even if Calunius take up to 30% of that (they'll probably take less) I can still see OXS clearing 20p per share.

[papillon] 25/11/2015 20:55

I see your point, wulber, but on the 7th January 2010 OXS issued an RNS where they proposed the following in exchange for receiving financing to the tune of US$185m:

"If all the Concert Party's convertible loan notes and warrants are exercised and the Company issues no further new shares, and no existing convertible loan notes, options or warrants are converted or exercised, the Concert Party's equity holding in the Company would represent 72.0% of the share capital of the Company as enlarged by the Financing."

No mention in that RNS of future profits from gold production, wulber.

If OXS were prepared to effectively sell 72% of the company, in January 2010, for US%185m with no allowance made for lost profits from future gold production, wulber, why then would the arbitrators make an allowance for future profits from gold production in any award they make against the Uzbeks?

PS. If the arbitrators use that OXS RNS of 7/1/10 as the basis for any award they announce then we could be looking at OXS receiving US$257m + interest. Perhaps US$300m?

[wulber] 25/11/2015 20:29

Please note in Oxus's case, it has been 4 years since the case started so interest needs to be added.Also remember that there has been 4 years of gold production removed and sold by the Uzbeks in addition to interest!

[kcowe] 25/11/2015 20:29

I should imagine Darwins allocation has been forward sold .

[john henry] 25/11/2015 19:57

Bronco same old same old, every month Darwin get issued with 2.5M shares which they dump into the market.

Rinse and repeat

[grahamc333] 25/11/2015 19:24

Thanks melo, I was just about to get me coat..!

[jackington] 25/11/2015 19:07

On the question of interest calculated, it isn't straight forward. See the extract below from the Yukos case:

Info from:

hxxps://www.iisd.org/itn/2014/09/04/yukos-v-russia-issues-and-legal-reasoning-behind-us50-billion-awards/

6.0 Interest

Interest may be factored into the calculation of damages under ECT Article 26(8). The claimants had proposed three rates: LIBOR plus two or four percent; the yield on Russian sovereign bonds issued in U.S. dollars; and the U.S. prime rate plus two percent. All of them were rejected: LIBOR, as the tribunal found it had been “discredited”; the yield on Russian sovereign bonds, as it would lead to “excessive compensation” (para. 1679); and the U.S. prime rate, as there was no evidence that the claimants had to borrow money because of the expropriation.

The tribunal looked for guidance in the Santa Elena v. Costa Rica decision (chaired, as the Yukos tribunal, by Yves Fortier). Santa Elena, along with other cases, supported the use of an interest rate that the amount of compensation, had it been paid right after the expropriation, would have earned if reinvested at that time—the “investment alternatives approach.” A rate based on ten-year U.S. Treasury bond rates was seen as appropriate by the tribunal, “in the exercise of its discretion” (para. 1685). While recognizing that compounded interest has become more frequent in investor-state arbitrations, it regarded as “just and reasonable” to grant simple pre-award interest and annually compounded post-award interest, if Russia does not fully pay the damages and costs within the 180-day grace period following the date of the award (para. 1689).

[melodrama] 25/11/2015 17:47

#28927 LMAO

[wulber] 25/11/2015 17:34

Pensioner filtered.

[papillon] 25/11/2015 17:24

pensioner stewart? A member since today and 23 posts already! Impressive stuff!

[pensioner stewart] 25/11/2015 17:00

I am told to relay the message

"Loverat is an idiot. Do not listen to him ever!"

[kun aguero1] 25/11/2015 16:57

see posts, 28383 and 28386. in the event of success. I have used 4%.

[grahamc333] 25/11/2015 16:47

That's interesting loverat..excuse the pun lol!If I need a loan I'll try the bank of Isis !

[wulber] 25/11/2015 16:32

Quite right love rat. I've assumed in my calcs 7.5% over last 4 years, plus GBPUSD from a low of $1.71 to now c. $1.50 provides OXS with another £105 mn on its award or $160 mnTherefore a top end full award of $1250 mn in 2011 / 12 becomes $1670 mn in 2015 / 16 and low end of $489 mn becomes $715 mnWe don't know what figure has been used as the bottomline or top end by the tribunal, but the last four years must be incorporated in to the award IMHO.Then, what do we get?Third, Half, Full, Nothing?

[melodrama] 25/11/2015 16:29

CHL's rate is insane, something maybe even above 8% , have seen the figure in the past, but now cannot locate in all their docs.

[grahamc333] 25/11/2015 16:28

Don't forget that since the original valuation there's a lot more time involved as well.