The current talk of potential lengthy delays caused by a pivot to 3D surveying will most probably see IVZO options expire at the end of July and the company failing to receive any conversion capital.
If the company chooses to go down the path of 3D surveying IVZO holders will fail to experience the milestones under which expectations were set, funds raised and the option maturity window set.
The options will expire and become worthless.
Should the company proceed down this path, this pivot from the stated objectives in the capital raise offer will potentially create “grounds for an IVZO holder’s class action” against the company.
The company’s decision to have the options as tradable securities will come into question as it has knowingly chosen to change the path of works with the clear understanding of the added timeframe and impact this will have on the ability to log a discovery within the expiry terms of the options.
On the 31st of August 2022 the company announcedto the market its objectives:-
$25mprivate placement completed to fund drilling of Mukuyu-1 and Baobab-1 wells
Maiden drilling campaignslated to commence in early September
On the 3rd of September the company announced to themarket “Invictus unveils new drill ready prospects in expanded licencearea”
Multiple drill readyprospects mapped in high potential expanded licence area
Additional large leadsalong trend with Mukuyu prospect in Central Fairway
Mukuyu-1 drilling slatedto commence in early September
Baobab-1 will target EastAfrica Rift “String of Pearls” play following Mukuyu-1
This was then followed by a detailed InvestorPresentation dated September 2022
(Someonemay wish to post a copy of the institutional investor document used for thecapital raise to clearly show the purpose, process and perceived timeframe ofactivity for which the capital was to be raised.)
The sticking points which potentially leave thecompany open to a hefty financial claim include:-
Therehas been a material change in the usage of the raise funds with the companyfailing to complete the two drill prospects as stated in the funding offer andproposed capital raise marketing material.
Thematurity time frame under which the options were offered is no longerachievable if undertaking additional 3D surveying takes place prior toannouncing a discovery. The expiry timeframe of the options may have beenmisleading and fraudulent by nature if there was a known potential for suchlengthy and disruptive work delays beyond the expected potential delays involved in an exploration drill schedule.
The company clearly stated “Invictusunveils new drill ready prospects in expanded licence area” inits September 3 release to the market and a reasonable person would understand “drillReady” to mean just that with no stated or inferred requirement for further seismicresearch prior to drilling.
The actions of the company to alter the timeframe of the marketedplan is being determined solely by company management with material impact oncompany funds and investor confidence. The company has failed to consultinvestors and has materially altered the expectations of those financialpartners in both risk and reward. (If the company goes down the path of 3D surveying)
Invictus Energy as with any othercompany has responsibility to its shareholders whether they be existing or newcapital partners. Clarity, transparency and objectives are the basis underwhich a capital raise is performed and the guidelines under which investors assessthe risk and reward. No different to a bank loaning funds to a business, thepurpose of those funds are assessed by the bank and loaned for the statedpurpose. Should a business borrow such funds and then use them for a differentpurpose the risk profile under which those funds were loaned has changed andthe borrower has committed a fraud.
Should Invictus choose to go down thepath of 3D survey, they may wish to consider measures to alleviated legalaction in relation to the Listed Options to maintain capital raise partner andshareholder confidence.
Such measures may include
1.Extending the expiring date of the existing options(In my experience I have never seen this undertaken and unsure if ASX ruleswould allow such action.)
2.Buy back options (determining the buy-back pricewould be difficult and open to dispute and would result in loss of capital)
3.Issued a one for one swap of existing options to newtwelve month maturity options from time of IVZO option maturity.
From an investor partner relations andcapital preservation perspective one measure stands out as the most responsibleway forward to avoid lengthy and capital draining legal action while preservingthe potential influx of conversion capital on the existing options under thedelayed works program.
Or alternately fulfil the objectives thecompany took to market and complete the works program within a timely mannerand hopefully be successful in announcing a discovery.
DYOR
This does not constitute investor orlegal advice.
These have been traded on the ASX for many months now. There have been ample opportunities for sophs to sell at a much higher price than the current price. Anyone who bought them on-market, has been kept informed of the progress of the company via ASX announcements and should have been buying and/or selling with that knowledge. I think any suggestions of class action would be laughed at. It's really no different to any other losing trade and we've all had those. You just have to cop the loss and learn from your mistakes.
