a miner with the midas touch., page-40

Does anyone have any details on the arrangement that existed between Hillam and ASI, in terms of ownership structure of BMG?

All I have been able to find is a private blog on the subject, dated Feb 2011. Blog stated:

"John Hillam will not step down as CEO of BMG for the time being for the simple reason that he and his wife own 68% of BMG. BMG's backer has an option to increase their holdings in BMG up to 50% for the cost of $105 million, which would put the Hillams holdings at circa 45% of BMG post exercise of the option.

The positive aspect of this structure is that once the option is exercised, it appears the entire $105 million is due in a single installment. This essentially secures the necessary funding for CAP's allocation of monies under the terms of the contract.

The results of the Pre-feas will be the kicker. If it confirms that the deposit can be mined at low cost, as well as the ore body being expandable through drilling its almost 100% likely that BMG's financier will exercise their option and thus secure the terms of the contract to CAP.

Did a bit of DD over lunch regarding Ample Source International (ASI) who are the financiers of BMG. It appears that they're owned by a big businessman who made his fortune in electrical manufacturing, and is in the Forbes China 400. All this is unconfirmed though but had a quick squizz through the HK company register that seems to point to this individual."

Link to blog: http://australiantradediary.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/cap-update.html

On ASI, also hard to dig information but came across a very respectable Australian law firm who lists ASI as one of their clients, among an impressive list of Chinese companies on that list, go to page 3: http://www.mccullough.com.au/icms_docs/114666_Brochure_-_Doing_business_with_China_-_englishpdf.pdf

McCullogh is not the law firm representing ASI regarding the winding up of BMG.

If ASI were considering to pay $105 million for 50% of BMG and BMG lists Hawsons as its premium project, then ASI would possibly be very happy to keep the terms of the JV the same and simply takeover as J/V partner.

Any thoughts?