Pennyfalls
28 Nov 2015
Re: Phone number ok ...will doCheers
daviduzbek
28 Nov 2015
Re: Phone number Send me an email to [email protected] with a number and i'll phoned you next week, let em know approx date and time.Once i got it, i'll delete the yahoo account
Pennyfalls
28 Nov 2015
Phone number DavidUzbek - If I left a mobile number on here, would you call me?If you called you'd have to be online at the time also to check it's youCheers PF
Pennyfalls
28 Nov 2015
ps David Dont go to ground again ! You always disappear when it gets interesting
Pennyfalls
28 Nov 2015
Re: DavidUzbek - and the Oxus case You said ..."There were also a lot of bribes certainly paid, that is how business is done in that country and anybody saying they didn't pay a bribe is lying."...Right, you've piqued my interest now!Firstly, about Newmont, this is the reason (the precedent) I think we're heading for a lowish offer regardless of anything else -and guess who was the Claimant Arbiter for Newmont (ICSID )before it was abortede and settled - Marc LalondeI've been toying with the amount I've got in here again - only because I have reality checks now and then , away from the mass hysteria of the message boards (particulary advfn - which is mindless ramp city imo)If your assertion that bribes were paid (care to elaborate - even generally, and how you knwo this?) is correct, then that alone could blow this out of the water.If bribes were paid, it will depend on 1) To whom 2) on What level and 3) what part of the business deal development did it affect?This could lead to the throwout of the entire case ala Metal Tech (which has some unsettlng parallels) or reduction in payout (ala Yukos, which has some very nice parallels)Anyway, by now, I think people know I'm not a Ramper or Deramper (it's pointless anyway) but I probably am a tad more open to the negative possibilities of this case than many..Over to you...or anyone else with interesting views.Cheers PF
daviduzbek
28 Nov 2015
Re: DavidUzbek Hi Pennyfalls, not seen the Oxus contract as i have already said, but i have seen the Newmont contract and the Oxus contract is based very much on this one. The Newmont contract is written in Russian and English, with Russian taking precedenceWhat other defense can the Uzbeks have ?There were also a lot of bribes certainly paid, that is how business is done in that country and anybody saying they didn't pay a bribe is lying.My point remains, and i think you agree, the case is not as clear cut as we may think as evidenced by the time this is all taking. Sure Calnius have invested heavily, as others have, but not everything Calnius touch is a winner, that would be all a bit too simple and easy !
Pennyfalls
28 Nov 2015
DavidUzbek You say: "This failure to finance IS THE Uzbek defense and it's rather strong as it is clearly in breach of contractual terms, warnings were also give to Oxus that no finance would result in removal of the asset."Could you please elaborate on how you know that this is the Uzbek's defence? Are you surmising or do you factually know this somehow?My concerns about the Oxus case remain (as I do remember contemporaneously the management issues at the time 2009/2010) and particularly the lack of financing at the pivotal 2008 juncture.If anyone looks back at company accounts, they were due to get financing with RBS at this time - but the global financial crisis hit - and hit everyone , including Oxus , got hammered.This financing fell through and left Oxus in the lurch. Oxus , in the accounts just prior to this, had been quite upbeat about progress.The Chinese financing had some inherent problems it seems (which would have meant Oxus changing certain licence agreements, which the Uzbeks didn't like - and we don't know how much of all this was down to Oxus, The Chinese or The Uzbeks)...and does that actually constitute misappropriation, or just legit business workings, however harsh.Oxus were certainly hit by various spurious, unfairand overt tax/ audit attacks at certain points but , if you read the accounts, these are usually subsequently over-ridden by Oxus who move on to make upbeat forecasts for the future. There doesn't seem to be a thread of lingering expropriation hanging over them - but obviously, this may not have bee stated for obvious business reasons.The tax/ audit resulted in loss of profit at certain stages, but not expropriation..It was after the failure of financing with RBS that things got tricky - and , I suppose we just do not know what was in the contracts, and what could be legally punitive and what couldn't.But , my point is that the lack of financing at that critical juncture in 2008 had NOTHING to do with the Uzbeks , who were apparently happy for Oxus to gain financing. This was because of the financial crisis. Oxus then suffered because no-one would finance them due to the global climate. (until the Chinese came along)After re-reading the company reports over the years, I still believe that Brigitte Stern (at least) will see this as a case of giving us back what we had. This seems to be her way.In fact, with Brigitte Stern , it almost seems pointless going through years of Arbitration because she almost seems to have made up her mind at the start , and legally works towards that pre-conceived conclusion.You would think Lalonde gores our way...So.. what a bizarre process when ultimately it does seem like a huge decision rests on the shoulders of one man, the chairman. All seems like 5 years of closed shop legal self-indulgence.Whenever I get carried away about what I expect from this (ie will it be a huge amount), I go back to the documents of the time, the BBs of the time, and the Annual reports. If a win (and no unclean hands involved) I still think this is heading for lowball sunk cost or lower end compensation.Views appreciated..and good luck all
Nick763
25 Nov 2015
Re: Indaknow cult David, interesting posts and well done to limescale for highlighting that your thoughts are conjecture or guesswork but dressed up a bit as having a factual basis to them. Clearly Calunius (who really would have seen the documents) don't take your view. They would have done extensive due diligence and probably used more than one legal opinion. I doubt if they would have touched OXS with a bargepole if the documents you allude to gave the remotest hint of breach of contract.
Pennyfalls
25 Nov 2015
Re: Indaknow cult Good points limescale..David, I actually like your posts, but it would be nice for assessing your overall accuracy if you could spell Bill TREW's name right once ! This tends to mitigate against some of your posts..Anyway, I do think that DavidUzbek possibly has some legitimate pojnts in a way that can be argued that Brigitte Stern sometime's assesses cases (I've just posted a bit on LSE)She seems a bit of a maverick/stickler/pedantic - and alsways for the "wrong" side, which is a bit worrying, but she has argued and written in the apst that supposed illegal expropriation can be strangely made "legal" by paying back basic compensation/sunk costs etc..However, David, because this was creeping expropriation, starting at a point in 2004, and with many distressing audits and spurious tax claims against the company along the way (eg the circa $230Mill "fine" the Uzbeks seemed to pull out of thin air, and then retracted magically when Zeromax bought in.....then this case is a sum of its parts - and you can't simply say Oxus failed to carry out contractual obligations, as each incremental step in misapropriation then made Oxus' job harder in a compounded way.So, ultimately the failure of finding financing can be laid squarely at the feet of the Uzbeks (for making Oxus' position untenable over a period of years)(If you believe in Oxus' case)
limescale
25 Nov 2015
Re: Indaknow cult Thanks for the response David and for confirming that you have just seen dore bars in the refinery rather than the Oxus/Uzbek contract and the Uzbek defence document.The wording of you statements did rather suggest that you had access to more information than everyone else.For example:1. "The fact remains, Oxus did not get the financing in order and lost the concession as per contractual terms"Use of the word "fact" is not appropriate.2. "This is certainly addresed in the fine print of the concession contract"How can you state this if you haven't seen the contract?3. "it all comes down to the interpretation of this document, which i suspect will be subject to Uzbek or Soviet law."How can you state this if you haven't seen the Uzbeks' defence?To sum up, I'm not sure your hypothesis can be taken too seriously and could in fact be extremely misleading.
daviduzbek
25 Nov 2015
Re: Indaknow cult I said i had seen the dore bars in the refinery, nothing else, nothing more.I have not seen the contract and i very much doubt it's anywhere in the public domain.Ditto Uzbek defence, but i think we can safely assume the lack of financing by Oxus is the reaon as this is what they used to remove the concession.The very fact this has gone on for so long now, with no outcome or arbitration award, in my opinion, just shows both sides have a justified position that has led to this situation.Who wins is anybody's guess, in my opinion, i think the lack of finance will weigh heavily against Oxus as the mine takeover was a direct consequence of this and was in breach of contractual terms, as i believe Oxus have already mentioned at the time, with no financing the concesion would be in jeopardy.
limescale
25 Nov 2015
Re: Indaknow cult daviduzbek - have you actually seen the "concession contract"? You state "this (the financing) is certainly addresed in the fine print of the concession contract", which implies that you have actually seen it.Is this "concession contract" in the public domain? If yes, perhaps you would like to share it with us.Also, have you actually seen the Uzbek defence to the arbitration claims? You seem to be stating that their defence is based on Oxus's inability to raise the necessary financing for Amantaytau. If the Uzbeks' defence is in the public domain perhaps you could share it with us also. If it's not publicly available perhaps you could let us know how you came to be aware of it's contents.Finally, if you have access to the Uzbek's defence, can you share with us the reason for the Uzbek's withdrawing Oxus's rights to Khandiza.To sum up, please share:1. The concession contract between Oxus and the Uzbeks2. Details of the Uzbek's defence to Oxus's arbitration claims3. The reason for Khandiza being withdrawn from Oxus
daviduzbek
25 Nov 2015
Re: Indaknow cult This i can confirm, i actually saw some of the gold at the refinery as dore bars when Bill True was CEO.The fact remains, Oxus did not get the financing in order and lost the concession as per contractual terms, which they were well aware of. There may be some compensation due, but this is certainly addresed in the fine print of the concession contract which Oxus signed with the Uzbek government, it all comes down to the interpretation of this document, which i suspect will be subject to Uzbek or Soviet law.
ultrapunch
24 Nov 2015
Re: Indaknow cult "No gold was mined!!"You are WRONG, LOUISJAMES_5. Get your facts right, buddy!!!!!!!!!Read this from the OXS half yearly report dated 20/9/10.Half Yearly ReportMon, 20th Sep 2010 07
0"RNS Number : 9248SOxus Gold PLC20 September 2010 OXUS GOLD plc("Oxus" or the "Company" or the "Group"
Interim Results for the six months ended 30 June 2010 HIGHLIGHTS- AGF increases operating profit by 407% to $3.95 million (2009: $779,000) and reports a profit after exceptional items, interest and tax of $1.05 million (2009: loss of $3.13 million) - AGF produces 2,579 ounces of gold and 301,949 ounces of silver at a cash operating cost of $403 per gold equivalent ounce, and a total production cost of $585 per gold equivalent ounce - Oxus signs agreement with Chinese consortium to invest and arrange approximately $185 million, subject to receipt of Chinese Government regulatory approvals">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They were DEFINITELY MINING GOLD, LOUISJAMES_5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ultrapunch
23 Nov 2015
If OXS win then we can only guess at the size of the settlement. Similarly we can only guess at the size of Calunius's fee.My guess is that the minimum award will be US$100m. The maximum? I have no idea. I'm hoping for around US$400m, but I'm only guessing. Many are thinking it could be much higher, but that could just wishful thinking on their part.Based on what Calunius say on their web site I reckon that if OXS are only awarded US$100m then Calunius could take around US$35m (they look for a return of 5, or 6 times their outlay) That would leave OXS with just US$65m. Around £42m. The current OXS Mkt Cap is £28m.If OXS were awarded my US$400m target then I imagine Calunius would get a higher fee (5, or 6 times outlay plus a percentage of settlement); say US$60m? That would leave OXS with US$340m. That's around £225m. That would mean the OXS sp would multi-bag.Of course OXS might not win. That's the gamble. It's a good gamble, IMO, with excellent potential upside, but don't bet more than you can afford to lose!!RUR issued an RNS on the 20/12/13 when they were told by the arbitrators that their UNCITRAL verdict would be given by the end of January 2014. RUR were awarded around 25% (US$35.5m) of their original US$142m claim. What defeated RUR was they had debts that needed to be repaid and soon so they accepted US$31.5m for early payment from the Bolivian Govt, but their debts to Birdsong (they didn't have a no win, no fee funder such as Calunius) soon gobbled that up. Since OXS now have no debt burden they shouldn't fall into the same trap as RUR.If the same happens with OXS as happened with RUR then we might get an OXS RNS giving a specific date for the verdict.
