Morning
@Oyster farmer
The evidence you seek re the impairment of the Volcan "
loan" is contained in the Half - Year Report announced on 19 March 2018 (page 33 to be precise).
The "
loan" was recognised by the board as being impaired as at 31 December 2017.
Why?
I ask - why don't the directors of QBL
pursue Volcan for that amount? It was an asset that belonged to QBL shareholders.
Do you think that an independent chair and or independent directors of the board would have impaired the "
loan"?
I find it incredulous that a company that needs their dollars to transform into a a MM outfit are not chasing every dollar that is owed to them! It beggars belief. And then they will have the temerity to ask shareholders to take out their wallets while they '
impair' $1,200,000 and let it slip through their fingers. And this doesn't raise concerns?
And by the way - here is what a
fiduciary duty is (you can find this paragraph easily enough);
"A fiduciary duty exists where a person (or company) is required to put another person's interests before their own. It arises from a relationship of trust and confidence, such as the relationship between doctors and their patients, directors and their companies, and agents and their principals."
(my bold)
How, in impairing the Volcan loan, is that putting the
interests of QBL shareholders '
before the interests' of the owners of Volcan? That is - in whose favour was that impairment made - QBL or Volcan?
Page 33 Half - Year Report
"
The loan to Volcan Australia Corporation Pty Ltd was not a cash advance from the company to Volcan, but was the amount that was to be paid in consideration for the purchase by Volcan Australia Corporation Pty Ltd (VAC) of ML1492 from the Company pursuant to the transactions completed on 14 December 2010 as approved at the time by shareholders at an EGM. Volcan was to have invested in ML1492, and from the profits of the development of that asset was to have paid QBL $1.2M. Volcan subsequently invested in the asset’s development, but due to the prevailing market conditions, Volcan was not able to make a profit from that asset at that time."
I have posted extensively on this topic before. It would be interesting to view the 2010 "
transactions" that made this possible.
Proprietary rights - I am not sure what you mean here ? However, it is clear that the proprietary rights of ML 1492 have passed from QBL to Volcan - that happened in 2010. Between 2010 and 31 December 2017 I can find nothing that suggests that Volcan have paid anything with respect to that '
transaction'. In fact, I wonder what was the original 'consideration'?
Thing is - Volcan have not repaid that $1,200,000 and that ought to be of concern to all QBL holders.
And why wouldn't the directors have included in those '
2010 transactions', a contractual clause that transferred the asset (ML1492) back to QBL upon Volcan not meeting their debt obligations? It is a very basic commercial clause. Try buying a car and not paying for it and see how long you hang on to that car.
In any commercial contract the ownership (e.g. a car) is retained by the financier until the debt is cleared. It is only then that the ownership (proprietary right) is transferred. If you fail to pay they take it back.
