Casual observation of the terms under which the Advent debt was...

First 17 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Mschubach

209 Posts.

86

03/02/22

17:09

Post #: 59336753
Share

Originally posted by Whiplashed ↑

Not sure where you’re getting your dates from but I can’t reconcile them with the announcements.

12/08/2019 - mec announces settlement of all legal disputes - describes Breeze and co’s return to controlling Advent (and by extension, onshore energy). BPH’s announcement for the same event was on the 9/08/2019.

I can’t see the Bonaparte deal termination announcement (nothing on MMR’s announcements for 10/8/2019 as you’ve indicated) but would bet my left nut that if it happened around the time of legal settlement between BPH and MMR and when Breeze & co controlled Advent again then it would be directly associated.

So anything happening from ~August 2019 is directly controlled by Breeze.

Looks like the MMR ann report (30/8/2021, last 2 bullet points page 4) paints a glowing picture of the plans for EP386 including the drilling submissions to WA govt. Without seeing the application to variation you mention was allegedly sought on 1/11/2019 (evidently by Breeze based on my dates here) it obviously didn’t satisfy the regulators. Breeze got his sook on from there and he’s been fighting with DMIRS/SAT/now supreme court ever since!!

Ah, just found that the Bonaparte deal was terminated on 10/08/2019, a few days after Breeze&co got onto Advent board. See p5 of 1/11/19 BPH announcement for Advent’s annual report. MEC can not have been a signatory to that agreement as it had no direct interest in Onshore. The legal settlement removed any bargaining power MMR had over Advent’s affairs w.r.t. the stupid terms of the ~$3.6m loan agreement. MMR’s own announcement around that time also notes it as a “passive” investor in Advent.

Expand

Casual observation of the terms under which the Advent debt was agreed upon seems on the face of it - one of great unfairness to MEC shareholders. Not being privy to all the details one could assume that the terms might just be based on unfairness therefore contestable - funds owed is always owed. Does that mean MEC Breeze and Advent Breeze have a conflict of interest and does this negate any real protection of MEC shareholders assets. How does this cock up of a company go forward when Breeze is the piggy in the middle. How one individual can control such a scenario suggests also that the governance integrity of the company must of at one time been severely compromised. Looks like it was always up to the whims of either an angry vindictive individual or one that is not capable of leading the company out of this mess. Over to you Breeze and Co.

MMR Price at posting: 0.4¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Held
1 Upvote

1 Great analysis

Reply