Does anyone have any details on the arrangement that existed...

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?