BLR (ASX) your plan after a no vote?

Originally posted by cait11 ↑

G'day MG,

You have highlighted a key point that many of those voting no just do not seem to grasp. It seems Glasier has taken collateral of the blr Colorado deposits and ablation machine. If a no vote happens and the $450k is not repaid on time, Glasier ends up with all the blr assets and we will be left with the blr listed shell, in my opinion from reading all the published documents.There would be nothing for the banks to lend against in a CR because there will be no assets other than the coal property in Alaska, and a building on Wyoming that blr most likely in my opinion can not make the monthly bond repayment. The fact that blr needed a loan of $450k says everything to those that are able to read between the lines.

In the meanwhile, I and the rest of the blr forum eagerly await for the operational and strategic plan from blr in a NO vote from BUC and Tydec.

Cait

Expand

It seems likely that the yes votes will prevail, but in the unlikely event that they don't, I don't see how WUC would end up with the Hansen/Taylor Ranch project and both ablation machines. Assuming BLR couldn't raise the $450k plus accrued interest, WUC could foreclose on various assets to the extent the value of the assets equaled the debt. Assets pledged under the credit facility include all outstanding shares of BLR's U.S. subsidiary, all personal property, and real property associated with the Hansen project. According to Mineral Ablation LLC's unaudited 12/31/14 balance sheet, the book value of the 5-ton ablator was $2 million USD. The book value of the smaller unit was $1.1 million USD. If these carrying values are anywhere close to fair market value, either unit alone would cover the debt easily. WUC could foreclose and take possession of the small ablator to satisfy the debt, and the 5-ton unit and Hansen assets wouldn't even come into the picture. However, what if the ablators are worth far less than the carrying values? In that case, one might question BLR's financial reporting, specifically whether impairment testing had been done on the ablators as required by U.S. and international GAAP.