Do you know panthera took them to court in india. Once the court protected pantheras claim. The local government made an agreement to give them the license if they dropped their legal actions. They even sent out guys to mark the new license.
This was all presented in court and documented.
Panthera dropped thier legal actions but the government did not follow through.
India will have to explain all of this. I will post you relevant RNS
This is old ceo comment on when they made agreement.
Geoff Stanley, Chief Executive Officer of Panthera Resources, commented:
"This step towards the granting of the JV's PL and the associated Court Order is of utmost importance. It recognises and records the recent agreement between the GoR and the JV regarding the granting of our PL and puts the mandate on the GoR to take action in respect of the PL application within three months. This positive legal outcome is complimented by the constructive dialogue and understanding that has been reached with key members of the GoR and other key organisations involved in the approvals process."
"These steps are important milestones on the path to the granting of a PL for our flagship Bhukia project, where we expect to define a world class, open pittable, gold-copper deposit."
"I am immensely disappointed that, after working under a valid RP for three years and defining a resource, after 10 years of work on this permit, after having negotiated with the GoR an agreed plan for its grant, and after almost a year of positive feedback from the Principal Secretary of Mines, that the GoR has used all of the same issues that have been addressed and settled repeatedly at various times in the past as reasons to reject the PL application. The intention, motives and timing of the actions of the GoR are highly questionable, as they allowed the JV to work in the area under a RP, spend significant resources to identify a JORC compliant resource and now after all these years are yet again attempting to deny the JV its legal rights.
1. Following an application by MMI to change its name, the Registrar of Delhi, NCT of Delhi and Haryana issued a letter dated 6-1-2004 which approved the change from 'Metal Mining India Limited' to 'Metal Mining India Private Limited'. Thereafter, on 12-2-2004 the Registrar of Companies issued a fresh certificate of incorporation. The change in the name of the Company was in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and with approval from the Government of India. The GoR was informed and accepted the name change in 2005.
2. The change of name of a company does not affect any rights or obligations of the company. Section 23 of the Companies Act, 1956 is unequivocal on that matter. It remains the same legal entity before and after the name change. Before and after the name change it had the same corporate details, the same directors and same shareholders. There was no transfer of ownership.
3. HZL's PL was granted for 5 years from 18-6-1998 to 17-6-2003, and the reconnaissance permit of the Company was applied on 27-9-2003 i.e. after the prospecting licence of HZL over the subject area expired.
For a variety of reasons the GSI had no rights over the RP areas when they were granted. Under the guise of departmental exploration, the area was handed over against the mandate of law to GSI. It is further pertinent to mention that under the proviso to rule 75 of the MCR 1960 any such notification of departmental use shall lapse on the expiry of the period of notification in case the State Government fails to undertake prospecting or mining operations during the period of the notification. Since GoR did not carry out any exploration as such the notification stood lapsed as far back as on 26-9-2004.
Geoff Stanley, Chief Executive Officer of Panthera Resources, commented:
"This step towards the granting of the JV's PL and the associated Court Order is of utmost importance. It recognises and records the recent agreement between the GoR and the JV regarding the granting of our PL and puts the mandate on the GoR to take action in respect of the PL application within three months. This positive legal outcome is complimented by the constructive dialogue and understanding that has been reached with key members of the GoR and other key organisations involved in the approvals process."
"I am immensely disappointed that, after working under a valid RP for three years and defining a resource, after 10 years of work on this permit, after having negotiated with the GoR an agreed plan for its grant, and after almost a year of positive feedback from the Principal Secretary of Mines, that the GoR has used all of the same issues that have been addressed and settled repeatedly at various times in the past as reasons to reject the PL application. The intention, motives and timing of the actions of the GoR are highly questionable, as they allowed the JV to work in the area under a RP, spend significant resources to identify a JORC compliant resource and now after all these years are yet again attempting to deny the JV its legal rights.
These special situations you list are great! Like Emerita, I’m also doing the due diligence but this also looks like it’s a case of justice waiting to be served.
35% of the entire deposit is worth way more than that even accounting for the 65% royalty rate that was awarded to the new owner. Panthera had defined a 1.7 million oz JORC resource at 1.4g/t but was prevented from expanding it to confirm the UNFC 7.17 million oz at 1.95g/t resource published by the Geological Survey of India over the same license area. 7 million oz of gold is worth a lot of money as gold prices are going through the roof. It will be interesting to see how far they take it. I have a feeling India will offer a settlement given the high risk of losing
Some key things you might want to add.
Do you know panthera took them to court in india. Once the court protected pantheras claim. The local government made an agreement to give them the license if they dropped their legal actions. They even sent out guys to mark the new license.
This was all presented in court and documented.
Panthera dropped thier legal actions but the government did not follow through.
India will have to explain all of this. I will post you relevant RNS
These are very informative ( I know the
pat.l story very well)
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/significant-step-towards-grant-of-bhukia-pl-4ta38asqibhpfu5.html
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/bhukia-prospecting-licence-application-update-qb490dzrq7in2lg.html
I appreciate helpful comments and DD. Feel free to share anything you find or know!
I speak to the ceo after every RNS
This is old ceo comment on when they made agreement.
Geoff Stanley, Chief Executive Officer of Panthera Resources, commented:
"This step towards the granting of the JV's PL and the associated Court Order is of utmost importance. It recognises and records the recent agreement between the GoR and the JV regarding the granting of our PL and puts the mandate on the GoR to take action in respect of the PL application within three months. This positive legal outcome is complimented by the constructive dialogue and understanding that has been reached with key members of the GoR and other key organisations involved in the approvals process."
"These steps are important milestones on the path to the granting of a PL for our flagship Bhukia project, where we expect to define a world class, open pittable, gold-copper deposit."
Ceo response on them breaking it
Geoff Stanley, Panthera Resources Managing Director, commented;
"I am immensely disappointed that, after working under a valid RP for three years and defining a resource, after 10 years of work on this permit, after having negotiated with the GoR an agreed plan for its grant, and after almost a year of positive feedback from the Principal Secretary of Mines, that the GoR has used all of the same issues that have been addressed and settled repeatedly at various times in the past as reasons to reject the PL application. The intention, motives and timing of the actions of the GoR are highly questionable, as they allowed the JV to work in the area under a RP, spend significant resources to identify a JORC compliant resource and now after all these years are yet again attempting to deny the JV its legal rights.
If you look into the rns you will see the crazy arguments GOR used.
1. The license was not free to give. Well pat.l got the license from them when they advertised it :). Records show there was no other claim
2. They changed the name of company. Facebook changing its name to Meta does not change a legal entity!
3. Something about Tribal land, but I believe that is also easy to dispute.
If you read these weak arguments, that have been recorded in court.
Would you think they would pass the you are not blocking us test.
This is what you should focus on
1. Following an application by MMI to change its name, the Registrar of Delhi, NCT of Delhi and Haryana issued a letter dated 6-1-2004 which approved the change from 'Metal Mining India Limited' to 'Metal Mining India Private Limited'. Thereafter, on 12-2-2004 the Registrar of Companies issued a fresh certificate of incorporation. The change in the name of the Company was in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and with approval from the Government of India. The GoR was informed and accepted the name change in 2005.
2. The change of name of a company does not affect any rights or obligations of the company. Section 23 of the Companies Act, 1956 is unequivocal on that matter. It remains the same legal entity before and after the name change. Before and after the name change it had the same corporate details, the same directors and same shareholders. There was no transfer of ownership.
3. HZL's PL was granted for 5 years from 18-6-1998 to 17-6-2003, and the reconnaissance permit of the Company was applied on 27-9-2003 i.e. after the prospecting licence of HZL over the subject area expired.
For a variety of reasons the GSI had no rights over the RP areas when they were granted. Under the guise of departmental exploration, the area was handed over against the mandate of law to GSI. It is further pertinent to mention that under the proviso to rule 75 of the MCR 1960 any such notification of departmental use shall lapse on the expiry of the period of notification in case the State Government fails to undertake prospecting or mining operations during the period of the notification. Since GoR did not carry out any exploration as such the notification stood lapsed as far back as on 26-9-2004.
In the below you
Geoff Stanley, Chief Executive Officer of Panthera Resources, commented:
"This step towards the granting of the JV's PL and the associated Court Order is of utmost importance. It recognises and records the recent agreement between the GoR and the JV regarding the granting of our PL and puts the mandate on the GoR to take action in respect of the PL application within three months. This positive legal outcome is complimented by the constructive dialogue and understanding that has been reached with key members of the GoR and other key organisations involved in the approvals process."
Comment on breaking agreement
Geoff Stanley, Panthera Resources Managing Director, commented;
"I am immensely disappointed that, after working under a valid RP for three years and defining a resource, after 10 years of work on this permit, after having negotiated with the GoR an agreed plan for its grant, and after almost a year of positive feedback from the Principal Secretary of Mines, that the GoR has used all of the same issues that have been addressed and settled repeatedly at various times in the past as reasons to reject the PL application. The intention, motives and timing of the actions of the GoR are highly questionable, as they allowed the JV to work in the area under a RP, spend significant resources to identify a JORC compliant resource and now after all these years are yet again attempting to deny the JV its legal rights.
These special situations you list are great! Like Emerita, I’m also doing the due diligence but this also looks like it’s a case of justice waiting to be served.
Really interesting idea, and a good write-up.
How do we get to USD 1 billion?
35% of the entire deposit is worth way more than that even accounting for the 65% royalty rate that was awarded to the new owner. Panthera had defined a 1.7 million oz JORC resource at 1.4g/t but was prevented from expanding it to confirm the UNFC 7.17 million oz at 1.95g/t resource published by the Geological Survey of India over the same license area. 7 million oz of gold is worth a lot of money as gold prices are going through the roof. It will be interesting to see how far they take it. I have a feeling India will offer a settlement given the high risk of losing