Oxus Gold Share Discussion Threads

[wulber] 14/12/2015 17:07

Of course news could come any day before!I take comfort from the last stern and lalonde case where 33% of the max dcf was awarded.Fingers crossed!

[kcowe] 14/12/2015 16:34

There is only one date that may spring a surprise for us.. end of December as in ARMS arb result last year.I do feel a christmas induced optimism that all will be revealed around that time.

[pennyfalls] 14/12/2015 16:29

Well, you can mark me down all you like, all you're doing is deluding yourself if you ignore past cases.
They're there as historical documents. Choose to ignore them if you feel easier staying ignorant of how panels work.
Of course, our panel, may be be one of the minority generous types.

Maytrees, well, I hope it comes in..still think there'll be some payout - of not ginormous proportions though. On the other hand, I won't be too shocked if they rule against Oxus, simply because there's a hell of a lot we don't know about the case to prevent us forming a rounded opinion.

I take heart from Gibbons' holding - and it seems RAB/Tri continues to hold, but I'm also aware that Mr G only needs a slight uplift from his circa 2.3p average to make it a bloody good investment.
Even 6p would see Funky getting approx £2Mill back.

[papillon] 14/12/2015 16:17

"If Oxus would have had to declare it to the TP then that would imply ownership issues."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why would that imply OXS "ownership issues" in relation to the 50/50 AGF JV, hbr? Surely ....... "such agreement would likely be subject to the agreement of the Takeover Panel and the approval of the Company's shareholders at a general meeting" ....... is only because of the SHEER SIZE of the deal in relation to OXS's Mkt Cap!! In effect it would be akin to an RTO because the deal would have dwarfed OXS's Mkt Cap at the time. I'm afraid your train of thought is escaping me, hbr. "Ownership issues" are not mentioned in any of OXS's RNS's at the time in relation to the deal so why bring them up now? Are you some kind of a conspiracy theorist? Stick to the facts.

[maytrees] 14/12/2015 15:58

TX Pennyfalls

I've been here a while really because having looked at the arguments as far as possible, I think there there is or ought to be a good chance of success.

[pennyfalls] 14/12/2015 15:50

Fao Maytrees..

I think you misunderstood about the 80% statistics...diametrically.

It wasn't 80% chance that Oxus would win , it was an 80% chance that a company (in the past, on quotable cases) would LOSE, or get only up to 20% of their claimed amount.

[hairballradical] 14/12/2015 15:24

You could try the circus and the Elephants.

[1zabrina] 14/12/2015 15:15

under no circumstances would I join such a bunch of sycophants.

[kcowe] 14/12/2015 15:15

Always good fun when makday is on board .... got a great way of communication, can't beat the direct approach...;)

[apfindley] 14/12/2015 15:09

Oh dear zabrina Another incarnation of you know who.Sad sad sad individual.Go on, get all stroppy and wound up with GS.Will you be joining us all for the award party??If you get invested in time.

[1zabrina] 14/12/2015 14:56

lets see 3p or under, then we hear some moaning.

[1zabrina] 14/12/2015 14:54

but of course 30306 is not bad taste, not moderated, G.S.sad man.

[giant steps] 14/12/2015 14:09

O/T

#30295 1zabrina, moderated - content in very poor taste

[hairballradical] 14/12/2015 13:20

Pap,

I'm not sure that there's any right or wrong here. The chinese deal was an ownership related issue in as much as the financing was to be reported to the Takeover Panel if it occurred after Dec 31st 2010. Here is your own quote from above thanks,

'In the event that the Consortium and Oxus Gold enter into a new proposed financing agreement after 31 December 2010, such agreement would likely be subject to the agreement of the Takeover Panel and the approval of the Company's shareholders at a general meeting.'

If Oxus would have had to declare it to the TP then that would imply ownership issues.

[pug151] 14/12/2015 12:21

Good move 99

[1zabrina] 14/12/2015 12:16

come on gang, lets all get im. gutless wimps.

[99jeremiah] 14/12/2015 12:06

1zabrina - filtered

[maytrees] 14/12/2015 11:58

TX papillon for some interesting posts

[1zabrina] 14/12/2015 11:54

pap, don't talk about yo self like that. keep taking the tablets that the nice lady in white gives yo.

[papillon] 14/12/2015 11:50

1zabrina
14 Dec'15 - 08:45 - 30287 of 30305 0 1 (Filtered)

1zabrina
14 Dec'15 - 11:48 - 30305 of 30305 0 0 (Filtered)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A LIAR. A poster who dresses up CONJECTURE AND FANATASY AS FACT.

I deal in facts. The US$185m Chinese offer was a FACT. The failure of Chinese administrative approvals for the deal to go ahead by the 31/12/10 resulting in the lapsing of the offer was a FACT. My minimum arbitration award of US$300m (minus Calunius take) is my conjecture based on those FACTS. It will take the ACTUAL arbitration verdict to show whether my conjecture is true, or false!!

[1zabrina] 14/12/2015 11:48

if and if, then maybe but it could be this if, if what and why for, pap, you are full of wind, what is the point of pontificating?

[papillon] 14/12/2015 11:41

"But apart from all that I guess you can use the Chinese deal as a starting point."

I agree, Edgein. A good starting point. Anything over and above my US$300m (minus Calunius take) target award is a BONUS, IMO. I'm looking forward to the arbitration verdict, whenever it comes!!

[papillon] 14/12/2015 11:30

hbr. The OXS RNS's imply that the slowness of the Chinese communist party bureaucracy in granting approvals is the only reason for the lapsing of the financing agreement. NO MENTION OF ANY OF YOUR "OWNERSHIP COMPLICATIONS"

"17th November 2010

Further to the announcement dated 9 June 2010, the Company can confirm that it has been informed that the most critical of the approvals necessary to give effect to the financing has been granted by the relevant Chinese authority, while the other two largely administrative approvals are also being processed without any known issues"

"30 December 2010


Further to the announcements dated 9 June 2010 and 17 November 2010, Oxus Gold was today advised that the further approvals necessary to give effect to the financing agreement between the Company and a consortium of Chinese investors (the "Consortium") will not be granted by 31 December 2010. Accordingly, the financing agreement between the Company and the Consortium will lapse on 31 December 2010.


In the event that the Consortium and Oxus Gold enter into a new proposed financing agreement after 31 December 2010, such agreement would likely be subject to the agreement of the Takeover Panel and the approval of the Company's shareholders at a general meeting."