The quarterly of BGL has been filed yesterday on s
Post# of 9903
Posted On: 04/30/2015 5:25:46 AM
The quarterly of BGL has been filed yesterday on sedar.com.
It's the Interim financial statements/report - English and the MD&A.
I wanted to wait until this quarterly to be filed to know what exactly has been going on. Has there been contact between MSJ and BGL when the annual audited report was filed or not?
This is the important line on Page F-17 in the Interim financial statements/report. It has not changed:"As at February 28, 2015, the Company is still in the process of protecting its interest
in the Cinco Minas and Gran Cabrera mining properties in the Mexican courts". Earlier I posted that there had to be a resolution otherwise there could be no buyout/sale for MSJ and its mines.
Now this line "As at February 28, 2015, the Company is still in the process of protecting its interest in the Cinco Minas and Gran Cabrera mining properties in the Mexican courts" tells me everything I need to know.
There has been no contact between BGL and MSJ. BGL didn't write off the first impairment because they reached out for a settlement with MSJ. They wrote off the first impairment because they were forced to by the auditors. The annual report is audited and I guess the auditors wanted BGL
to start writing off a chunk of the Cinco Minas/ Gran Cabrera that BGL considered as assets. The auditors themselves could get into trouble if BGL didn't start writing a chunk off already. It's been 7 years since
BGL started their "process of protecting its interest in the Cinco Minas and Gran Cabrera mining properties in the Mexican courts".
This also tells me that BGL doesn't feel the need to reach out to MSJ and they want to continue to do this until the end. And the end would be next year when the next audited annual would be reported, I presume. By doing this, BGL also sent out a clear message to MSJ that BGL is not interested in solving this issue in private with MSJ. This also means that BGL will not be seeing any of the money back, that they invested in the former
JV with MSJ. The hate for MSJ must have been so much, that they rather continue doing this until the end instead of still seeing some of the money back that they invested. BGL has clearly made their choice.
In the quarterly we also read this below the line "As at February 28, 2015, the Company ..": "Should the ruling be in favour of the defendant, the Company would be required to recognize an impairment charge on the property for $4,560,676."
This is what we have so far:
1) August 2011 - Supreme court ruling , MSJ wins , BGL loses.
BGL can still try for 3 years to pursue the mines in courts.
2) March 19 2014- Final court ruling, MSJ owns mines. See Followdaisy's post 6107, called Mexican mining registry through a colleague to find out ownership of Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera. MSJ owns mines was the response.
3) August 2014- 3 years after supreme court ruling. BGL can't pursue Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera anymore.
4) Now: 13 months after the final court ruling, see 2)
The final ruling on March 19 2014 has been made. MSJ owns the mines. I also would like to say that there's no way a foreign company can ever own Mexican mines completely. It will always be in a way of a joint venture. So after the final ruling we still read the line "Should the ruling be in favour of the defendant, the Company would be required to recognize an impairment charge
on the property for $4,560,676.". They should have written it off completely.
Why is that? It's because the quarterlies are unaudited. They can write
whatever they want.
So what's next now? Can BGL keep this up until March 31st 2016 when the next audited annual report is filed?
They could if MSJ alone owned the mines and if MSJ didn't have an agreement with another company. We all know there's an agreement between Minera Agave S.A. de CV and MSJ. It's up to MSJ/Minera Agave how they want to proceed now they know that BGL doesn't want to come to an agreement with MSJ even if to clear the air between them and MSJ. MSJ/Minera Agave doesn't even have to reference BGL in the buyout/jv press release because the final ruling on these mines has already been made on March 19th 2014 by the court.
I'm sure Minera Agave checked with the Mexican Mining registry who owned these mines and they must have asked MSJ about it.
I also would not be surprised if BGL owned a chunk of SRGE shares as well just to cover themselves and still make money when a press release hits
and come out unscathed.
The options for MSJ/Minera Agave are:
1) still issue a press release and not referencing BGL
2) issue a press release and referencing BGL with legal action
3) wait until next year when BGL writes off the remaining of the impairment, which can not be 100 % sure
It's time for action on the side of MSJ/Minera Agave.
It's the Interim financial statements/report - English and the MD&A.
I wanted to wait until this quarterly to be filed to know what exactly has been going on. Has there been contact between MSJ and BGL when the annual audited report was filed or not?
This is the important line on Page F-17 in the Interim financial statements/report. It has not changed:"As at February 28, 2015, the Company is still in the process of protecting its interest
in the Cinco Minas and Gran Cabrera mining properties in the Mexican courts". Earlier I posted that there had to be a resolution otherwise there could be no buyout/sale for MSJ and its mines.
Now this line "As at February 28, 2015, the Company is still in the process of protecting its interest in the Cinco Minas and Gran Cabrera mining properties in the Mexican courts" tells me everything I need to know.
There has been no contact between BGL and MSJ. BGL didn't write off the first impairment because they reached out for a settlement with MSJ. They wrote off the first impairment because they were forced to by the auditors. The annual report is audited and I guess the auditors wanted BGL
to start writing off a chunk of the Cinco Minas/ Gran Cabrera that BGL considered as assets. The auditors themselves could get into trouble if BGL didn't start writing a chunk off already. It's been 7 years since
BGL started their "process of protecting its interest in the Cinco Minas and Gran Cabrera mining properties in the Mexican courts".
This also tells me that BGL doesn't feel the need to reach out to MSJ and they want to continue to do this until the end. And the end would be next year when the next audited annual would be reported, I presume. By doing this, BGL also sent out a clear message to MSJ that BGL is not interested in solving this issue in private with MSJ. This also means that BGL will not be seeing any of the money back, that they invested in the former
JV with MSJ. The hate for MSJ must have been so much, that they rather continue doing this until the end instead of still seeing some of the money back that they invested. BGL has clearly made their choice.
In the quarterly we also read this below the line "As at February 28, 2015, the Company ..": "Should the ruling be in favour of the defendant, the Company would be required to recognize an impairment charge on the property for $4,560,676."
This is what we have so far:
1) August 2011 - Supreme court ruling , MSJ wins , BGL loses.
BGL can still try for 3 years to pursue the mines in courts.
2) March 19 2014- Final court ruling, MSJ owns mines. See Followdaisy's post 6107, called Mexican mining registry through a colleague to find out ownership of Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera. MSJ owns mines was the response.
3) August 2014- 3 years after supreme court ruling. BGL can't pursue Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera anymore.
4) Now: 13 months after the final court ruling, see 2)
The final ruling on March 19 2014 has been made. MSJ owns the mines. I also would like to say that there's no way a foreign company can ever own Mexican mines completely. It will always be in a way of a joint venture. So after the final ruling we still read the line "Should the ruling be in favour of the defendant, the Company would be required to recognize an impairment charge
on the property for $4,560,676.". They should have written it off completely.
Why is that? It's because the quarterlies are unaudited. They can write
whatever they want.
So what's next now? Can BGL keep this up until March 31st 2016 when the next audited annual report is filed?
They could if MSJ alone owned the mines and if MSJ didn't have an agreement with another company. We all know there's an agreement between Minera Agave S.A. de CV and MSJ. It's up to MSJ/Minera Agave how they want to proceed now they know that BGL doesn't want to come to an agreement with MSJ even if to clear the air between them and MSJ. MSJ/Minera Agave doesn't even have to reference BGL in the buyout/jv press release because the final ruling on these mines has already been made on March 19th 2014 by the court.
I'm sure Minera Agave checked with the Mexican Mining registry who owned these mines and they must have asked MSJ about it.
I also would not be surprised if BGL owned a chunk of SRGE shares as well just to cover themselves and still make money when a press release hits
and come out unscathed.
The options for MSJ/Minera Agave are:
1) still issue a press release and not referencing BGL
2) issue a press release and referencing BGL with legal action
3) wait until next year when BGL writes off the remaining of the impairment, which can not be 100 % sure
It's time for action on the side of MSJ/Minera Agave.
(0)
(0)