life after bmg., page-2

Great post R36 - thanks for the summary.

I agree that a direct capital raising would not be my preferred option. However, don't forget CAP had $7.8M in cash at 31 March 2012, therefore would not need to raise the whole $13M.

Whilst your ASI alternative would see them acquire the whole of the Hawsons interest for $51M, this should be compared against what they had agreed when they first became a shareholder in BMG. Per paragraph 33 of judgement from 23 December 2011, ASI could acquire an additional 25% of the shares in BMG for $105M. Therefore, $51M for the whole of BMG's interest in the JV looks comparatively cheap given it is now significantly derisked from the time they became a shareholder in BMG and they were going to pay $105M for a much smaller slice of the JV. (Not sure if future payments for BFS would have come out of ASI's $105M, so $51M to $105M may not be an accurate comparison, but there percentage ownership in the JV would defintely be favourable to ASI if they continue post liquidation).

I think ASI stepping in as the new JV partner is a strong possibility. I don't know and have not been able to find out much about ASI's background or other interests. In an ideal world, I'd like the new JV partner to have either significant mining experience or interests in steel production. Further, if the new JV partner could sole fund the project without bank finance, then the BFS may not need to be as detailed and we may get to production a little faster.

Interesting times and looking forward to the outcome - I think it can only be positive.