Montero/Indiana Resources 2.0: Panthera Resources

Who doesn’t like a billion-dollar litigation?

To my small, but dedicated reader base, I am sending you a special bonus article over the weekend.

As many of you know, I primarily specialize in litigation based and bankruptcy debt/securities. Having had a lot of recent success in Emerita Resources, Indiana Resources, Montero Mining, and other litigations, I want to present you with the latest and most interesting one to date.

However, I would first like to acknowledge the source of this idea, Swen Lorenz of Undervalued Shares. If you like what I write, you should subscribe to him. Here is his extensive article on this litigation, but I am adding my two cents for all the people that don’t read this work.

https://www.undervalued-shares.com/weekly-dispatches/panthera-resources-multi-bagger-legal-claim/

With that, let’s get started.

London-listed microcap Panthera Resources (AIM: PAT) presents one of the most compelling risk/reward litigation setups in global markets today:

An approximately £20M market cap junior miner pursuing an international arbitration claim against India that could yield $1B+ in damages – backed by a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) framework that allows seizure of Indian state assets globally through PCA. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) are two prominent institutions for resolving international disputes, often involving states or state entities

This mirrors successful outcomes seen in Indiana Resources (ASX: IDA vs Tanzania), Montero Mining (TSXV: MON vs Tanzania), and Cairn Energy (LSE: CNE vs India), but with superior enforceability due to India’s vast international asset base.

I. The Bhukia Gold Project: 20 Years of Expropriation Culminating in Arbitration

In 2004, Panthera’s Australian subsidiary Indo Gold Pty Ltd (97% owned) secured rights to explore Bhukia, Rajasthan – later found to contain 7M+ ounces of gold (India’s largest deposit). Despite completing exploration commitments, India systematically blocked development:

2018: Rajasthan High Court rejected prospecting license on “spurious grounds”

2021: India amended mining laws to revoke Indo Gold’s rights

2023: Bhukia auctioned to third parties, granting India 65% royalty ($13B+ estimated lifetime value)

This constitutes textbook expropriation under the 1999 Australia-India BIT – a fact tacitly admitted by India’s own auction disclosures

II. Precedent Settlements: Why This Claim Is Worth $1B+

Case Study 1: Indiana Resources vs Tanzania ($109M Award)

Claim: Expropriation of nickel project (2018)

Outcome: $109M award (2023) + $14M interest

Settlement: Tanzania paid $90M (82.5% of award) to avoid asset seizures

Case Study 2: Montero Mining vs Tanzania ($70M Claim)

Claim: Expropriation of rare earth project (2017)

Settlement: $27M paid (39% of claim) pre-hearing

Case Study 3: Cairn Energy vs India ($1.2B Award)

Claim: Retroactive tax (2014)

Outcome: India settled for $1.06B (2021) after Cairn seized Air India planes

Panthera’s Calculus:

Sunk Cost Claim: $30M+ (exploration spend)

Royalty-Based Claim: $1B+

Precedent Multiples: 20-60% of claim value typical

Panthera has a credible 10 figure claim with a company market cap of £20 million.

Keep in mind, 7 million ozs of gold is currently worth over $20 billon USD and India is entitled to a 65% royalty on this, meaning the country is getting over $13 billion USD of revenue from this mine they expropriated from Panthera.

With LCM Funding (87% win rate) covering $13.6M in legal costs, Panthera is set to take this case to the mat. LCM is entitled to either 2-4.25X of the funded amount or 5 -15% of the reward amount, so not an overly burdensome amount of money compared to the claim amount.

III. Why India Is a Superior Counterparty to Tanzania

Companies settled with Tanzania because it had minimal foreign assets to seize. India faces existential risks. There are hundreds of billions of dollars the Indian state has outside of the country. BIT awards against India under PCA are enforceable in 145 countries under PCA. Post-Cairn, India knows defiance is futile – hence paying $1.06B despite initial protests.

IV. Conclusion

Panthera offers a rare combination. Asymmetric upside with potential of 10-30x in settlements, claims that are enforceable unlike many ICSID/PCA claims, and multiple near term catalysts in 2025. Unlike Tanzania, India can’t hide.

---

If you enjoyed this write-up, please like and share. I don’t get paid to do this, so consider that my reward.

Also, if you have other ideas I should write about, my DM’s are always open on substack and bluesky :)