Share
11,400 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 565
clock Created with Sketch.
12/01/18
12:23
Share
Originally posted by Basileus
↑
Ok ... thats a good start but ask yourself some questions about what you read. I will out myself on this thread. That paragraph wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of a literate 10 year old (and I am not saying you are comparable it's just an analogy).
Just some basics that I would ask.
"The loan to Volcan Australia Corporation Pty Ltd (VAC) was not a cash loan from QBL to VAC, but the amount that was to be paid by VAC in consideration for the transfer to Volcan Australia Corporation Pty Ltd of a sapphire mining project ML1492 from the company pursuant to the transactions completed on 14th December 2010 as approved at the time by shareholders at an EGM. "
Q 1
Ok - so return the sapphire project to QBL if Volcan can not pay or is unwilling to do so. By the way Volcan own 189m QBL shares. Why not sell some and pay the QBL shareholders (you) what they owe them?
"VAC was to have invested in the development of that asset and monetised that asset within that time period, and pay QBL the above amount. This amount was unsecured, due for payment in cash on 14th December 2012 from the proceeds of the mine, and there was no interest payable on the amount due."
Q2
Why is there no interest being charged and pnealties for non payment? If I were running QBL I would seek orders in the Federal Court to wind Volcan up.
And for that matter, why weren't there some non-payment provisions built into the 'loan '?
It is my view that omissions on that scale could not be considered in the best interests of QBL holders.
How do you reconcile these actions with the fiduciary duties owed by the Directors of QBL to their shareholders?
The difficulty arising is that the Directors of QBL are also Directors of Volcan. Is there an inherent conflict of interest here? You are entitled to ask the question.
"Following the transactions in 2010, although VAC did invest in the asset as contemplated, the markets for sapphires worsened and VAC was not able to monetise the asset prior to 14th December 2012. "
Q3 Then why not transfer ML1492 back to QBL or pay for it? I wish I could purchase property on similar terms.
"The directors have agreed that it is in QBL’s interest to allow VAC further time to endeavour to monetise the asset to make the agreed payment from that asset. "
Further time - for heavens sakes - they need more than 4 years? And does anyone not see a problem with the fact that the Directors of QBL and Volcan are the same people?
"As the timing of this payment is at present uncertain, it is considered prudent for this amount to be impaired in the accounts until the payment is able to be made. "
The timing of the payment??? Wasn't that stipulated in the contract transferring ML1492 to Volcan or was there no such contractual documentation? If none exits then doesn't that point to corporate incompetence?
In my view, the loan has been 'impaired' so that QBL never have to speak of it again.
Whats' my point?
You should all scrutinise the Corporate Governance being employed at QBL and wonder if your company is being managed for your benefit or for that of a small collection of others. Don't become the silent plodding 'cash cows' for this company.
In my view - a cap raise will be just around the corner. These guys definitely wont let this opportunity slip. They will, in all likelihood, fatten the bank balance and start charging exorbitant 'consulting' fees.
GLTAH
Expand
.... You know that Volcan is run by Pnina also right? Here is the directors of Volcan:
Link for Volcan: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=52967155
QBL link: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?privcapId=39064735
This thread is closed.
You may not reply to this discussion at this time.