Breaking
Invest Core Path
Author

admin

Browsing
Investing

Binding Commitments Received for A$1.0 Million under Convertible Note Placement

Investing 5 Mins Read

Nutritional Growth Solutions Limited (ASX:NGS) (‘NGS’ or ‘the Company’), is pleased to announce that it has received binding commitments for the issue of 1,000,000 convertible notes (Placement CNs), to be issued at $1.00 each (CN Placement).

HIGHLIGHTS

  • NGS has secured commitments of A$1.0 million under a placement of convertible notes.
  • Each investor who is issued with ordinary shares on conversion of the convertible notes will be issued with one option for each fully paid ordinary share that is issued on conversion of the convertible notes, with that issuance of options to take place on the same date as the ordinary share issuance date. This is expected to be within 10 business days of NGS shareholders approving that issuance of options including for the purposes of ASX Listing Rule 7.1. These options will be exercisable on a 1:1 basis into fully paid ordinary shares in NGS at an exercise price of $0.04 per option, and will expire 3 years following their issue date if they have not been exercised during that 3 year period.
  • The placement of convertible notes was supported by Australian sophisticated and professional investors.
  • Funds raised from the placement of convertible notes will be used to purchase inventory for retail expansion in CVS and Wakefern, as well as working capital and corporate expenses.

The offer of the Placement CNs was made to sophisticated and professional investors in Australia and successfully closed, achieving binding commitments of A$1.0 million.

Stephen Turner, NGS CEO and Managing Director, commented on the CN Placement:

“We are very pleased with the strong support shown by investors in this placement, which provides important growth capital to support our retail expansion into leading U.S. retailers, including CVS and Wakefern. We would like to thank our shareholders for their ongoing support as we execute our growth strategy and build on the momentum from our recent distribution achievements.”

The conversion of the convertible notes into fully paid ordinary shares in NGS will take place at a price of between A$0.03 and A$0.025 per ordinary share within 10 business days of NGS shareholders approving their conversion including for the purposes of ASX Listing Rule 7.1. NGS expects to convene a general meeting of its shareholders to consider whether to approve the conversion of the convertible notes into fully paid ordinary shares in NGS and whether to approve the issuance of options within the next few weeks.

Until the convertible notes are converted into ordinary shares or redeemed, they bear interest which is payable quarterly in arrear at either 10% per annum (if the holder of the convertible notes elects not to receive ordinary shares in NGS in lieu of cash interest), or 15% per annum (if the holder of the convertible notes elects to receive ordinary shares in NGS in lieu of cash interest). Issuance of ordinary shares in NGS in lieu of cash interest is subject to NGS being in compliance with the ASX Listing Rules. If the convertible notes have not been converted by the date that is 2 years after their issue date, they will be redeemed by NGS at their issue price.

Each investor who is issued with ordinary shares on conversion of the convertible notes will be issued with one option for each fully paid ordinary share that is issued on conversion of the convertible notes, with that issuance of options to take place on the same date as the ordinary share issuance date. This is expected to be within 10 business days of NGS shareholders approving that issuance of options including for the purposes of ASX Listing Rule 7.1. These options will be exercisable on a 1:1 basis into fully paid ordinary shares in NGS at an exercise price of $0.04 per option, and will expire 3 years following their issue date if they have not been exercised during that 3 year period (the CN Holder Options). Quotation of the CN Holder Options on the ASX will be sought.

USE OF PROCEEDS

The net proceeds from the issue of the convertible notes are planned to be used in the following areas:

LEAD MANAGER OPTIONS

The Company engaged GBA Capital Pty Ltd (AFSL 544680) to act as lead manager for the CN Placement (Lead Manager).

Under the terms of the mandate with the Lead Manager, the Lead Manager will be issued with 30% of the number of CN Holder Options (the Lead Manager Options). The Lead Manager Options will be exercisable on a 1:1 basis into fully paid ordinary shares in NGS at an exercise price of $0.04 per Lead Manager Option. The Lead Manager Options will expire 3 years following their issue date if they have not been exercised during that 3 year period.

The Lead Manager Options will be issued within 10 business days of NGS shareholders approving that issuance including for the purposes of ASX Listing Rule 7.1. NGS expects the Lead Manager Options to be issued at the same time as the issuance of the CN Holder Options. Quotation of the Lead Manager Options on the ASX will be sought.

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Stagflation Looms: Why Economists Are Warning of a Rare and Painful Economic Storm

Investing 8 Mins Read

The American economy may be heading toward stagflation, an environment characterized by high inflation, slowing growth and rising unemployment, US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell cautioned earlier this month.

‘Unemployment is likely to go up as the economy slows in all likelihood, and inflation is likely to go up as tariffs find their way and some part of those tariffs come to be paid by the public,’ Powell said during an April 15 appearance in Chicago.

While he was careful not to use the word ‘stagflation,’ experts have pointed out that the circumstances Powell outlined correspond with its definition, thrusting the term back into public discourse.

But what exactly is stagflation, and why is it such a concern for investors? Read on to find out.

What is stagflation?

Stagflation describes the economic scenario where inflation remains high even as economic growth slows and unemployment rises. Stagflation is a rare occurrence, and contradicts the foundational economic belief that inflation typically rises during economic booms and falls during recessions.

The term was coined by British politician Iain Macleod in 1965 and became infamous during the 1970s oil crisis, when a dramatic spike in oil prices triggered both rising costs and shrinking output across much of the global economy.

In simple terms, stagflation means you’re paying more for everything while earning less; at the same time, finding a new job, or even keeping your current one, becomes more difficult.

The misery index, created to measure such bleak periods, adds the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. During the worst of the 1970s, it exceeded 20. As of March 25, 2025, it stood at around 6.6, with inflation at 2.4 percent and unemployment at 4.2 percent. Many economists fear that number could rise quickly if current trends continue.

Why are experts sounding the alarm on stagflation?

A combination of geopolitical shocks, fragile supply chains and new economic policies — particularly a sweeping series of tariffs enacted by the Trump administration — has created a perfect storm, economists say.

The tariffs include a 10 percent universal tax on all imports, up to 25 percent duties on goods from Canada and Mexico and a staggering 245 percent tariff on imports from China. These are not minor adjustments — they are foundational changes to the pricing structure of the US consumer and business marketplace.

‘The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated,’ Powell said in a written statement from his Chicago appearance that was published on April 16. ‘The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.’

In other words, the tariffs act as a supply shock: They make it more expensive to bring goods into the country, which businesses pass on to consumers through price hikes. At the same time, higher costs can lead companies to cut back on investment and hiring, slowing the economy and increasing job losses.

“The Trump White House tariff policy has certainly increased the risk of both higher inflation and lower growth,” Brett House, professor of professional practice in economics at Columbia Business School, told CNBC.

To better understand what’s at stake, economists are looking at the 1970s — a decade that was marked by an oil embargo, skyrocketing prices and stagnant economic activity.

In response, then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker aggressively hiked interest rates, with the federal funds rate peaking at nearly 21 percent in 1981. The move ultimately tamed inflation, but plunged the country into two recessions.

That painful cure became the playbook for handling runaway prices, with central banks committing to maintaining credibility and acting decisively, even at the cost of job losses.

“The Fed’s credibility in keeping inflation low and stable, won over decades, kept longer-term inflation expectations stable,” Fed Governor Adriana D. Kugler said in a recent statement.

Still, today’s economic landscape differs from the 1970s in critical ways. The US is no longer as dependent on foreign oil. And labor unions, once a powerful driver of wage spirals, now represent a smaller portion of the workforce.

However, these differences might not offer much protection. While oil prices are less of a concern today, tariff-induced uncertainty could have a similar chilling effect.

How does stagflation impact everyday life?

For most people, stagflation translates into economic whiplash.

Essentially, prices go up, wages don’t keep pace and job security becomes tenuous. According to Forbes, a rising misery index would create a whole new roster of challenges for the everyday person.

To illustrate, people will likely have to spend more to get the same quantity of food, clothes and gas. Employees’ chances of getting laid off or working fewer hours will increase. For recent college graduates, the job market could become especially brutal. For families, the cost of borrowing — whether to buy a home, finance a car or use a credit card — could rise steeply if the Fed chooses to raise interest rates to combat inflation.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG, described today’s environment as having a “whiff of stagflation,” where people feel less secure about their financial future, even if the economic statistics haven’t fully caught up to the sentiment.

Is stagflation a certainty?

Not all economists agree that stagflation is inevitable, or that it will reach the same severity as in the 1970s.

Still, concerns are growing. Michael Feroli, JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (NYSE:JPM) chief US economist, issued a warning earlier this month, stating the bank now expects a recession in 2025.

He predicts unemployment will rise to 5.3 percent, while a core measure of inflation will reach 4.4 percent, which he described as a “stagflationary forecast.”

KPMG also projects a shallow recession, with inflation peaking at the end of the third quarter. But even a modest downturn could be painful for vulnerable workers and households already stretched thin by pandemic-era economic disruptions and the fading buffer of savings built up during that time.

What does stagflation mean for investors?

Stagflation presents a complex and often discouraging landscape for investors.

Unlike recessions, where bonds tend to do well as interest rates fall, stagflation often erodes the value of both stocks and bonds. In such periods, equities can suffer from declining corporate profits due to rising input costs, as well as weakening consumer demand, creating varied headwinds for the stock market.

At the same time, high inflation erodes the real value of future earnings, often leading to downward pressure on stock prices, particularly for growth-oriented companies whose valuations depend heavily on projected future cashflow.

Bonds, too, become vulnerable. Inflation eats into the fixed income stream provided by bonds, especially longer-term bonds. As inflation rises, the purchasing power of interest payments declines, and yields on newly issued bonds increase to compensate investors, driving down the market value of existing lower-yield bonds.

This was evident during the 1970s, the last prolonged period of US stagflation. At that time, both the S&P 500 (INDEXSP:.INX) and US treasuries experienced prolonged periods of underperformance in real terms.

Gold, on the other hand, surged in value as investors sought assets that could maintain their purchasing power amid inflation and economic uncertainty. The price of gold increased more than 1,000 percent from 1971 to 1980, reflecting its appeal as a hedge during economic stress. Commodities more broadly — such as oil, agricultural products and industrial metals — have historically performed better in stagflationary conditions.

Since commodities prices are a direct input into inflation measures, they tend to rise during inflationary periods, particularly when inflation is driven by supply shocks. For instance, in the 1970s, oil prices quadrupled following the OPEC embargo, delivering significant gains for energy producers and commodity-focused investors.

Still, it’s worth noting that no single asset or strategy is immune to the pressures of stagflation. While diversification, inflation hedging and a focus on quality assets are time-tested approaches, the unique combination of rising prices and faltering growth challenges even seasoned investors.

Investor takeaway

Stagflation is not just an economic term from the past — it may soon be a lived reality for millions and even billions.

With tariffs reshaping trade dynamics in real time, inflation hovering stubbornly above the Fed’s target and job growth showing signs of slowing, the conditions are set for a troubling period ahead.

Whether or not future policymaking can steer the economy away from this outcome remains to be seen. For now, consumers, businesses and investors alike would do well to prepare for the reality that stagflation brings — not just a historical anomaly, but a modern economic threat.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Keep reading…Show less
This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Silver Crown Royalties Announces Closing of Final Tranche of its Non-Brokered Private Placement

Investing 6 Mins Read

(TheNewswire)

Silver Crown Royalties Inc. ( Cboe: SCRI, OTCQX: SLCRF, BF: QS0 ) ( ‘Silver Crown’ ‘SCRi’ the ‘Corporation’ or the ‘Company’ ) is pleased to announce that the Company has successfully closed the third and final tranche (‘ Final Tranche ‘) of its non-brokered offering of units ( ‘Units’ ) that was previously announced on February 6, 2025 (the ‘Offering’ ) and issued 89,400 Units at a price of C$6.50 per Unit, for gross proceeds of approximately C$581,100

Each Unit consists of one common share ( ‘Common Share’ ) and one Common Share purchase warrant ( ‘Warrant’ ), with each Warrant exercisable to acquire one additional Common Share at an exercise price of C$13.00 for a period of three years from the closing date. A total of 232,248 Units were issued in accordance with the Offering for cumulative gross proceeds of C$1,509,615.

The proceeds from the Final Tranche will be used to partially fund the second tranche of the Company’s silver royalty acquisition on the Igor 4 project in Peru, as well as general and administrative expenses. All securities issued are subject to a statutory hold period of four months plus one day from the date of issuance, in accordance with applicable securities legislation. The closing was subject to customary conditions, including the approval of Cboe Canada Inc.

Regarding the receipt of payments from the Company’s producing royalties, Silver Crown expects to receive cash payments equivalent to approximately 6,703 ounces of silver in the first quarter of 2025. This is driven by the early payment of the PPX/Igor 4 royalty as well as payments under the Elk Gold Royalty.

ABOUT Silver Crown Royalties INC.

Founded by industry veterans, Silver Crown Royalties ( Cboe: SCRI | OTCQX: SLCRF | BF: QS0 ) is a publicly traded, silver royalty company. Silver Crown (SCRi) currently has four silver royalties of which three are revenue-generating. Its business model presents investors with precious metals exposure that allows for a natural hedge against currency devaluation while minimizing the negative impact of cost inflation associated with production. SCRi endeavors to minimize the economic impact on mining projects while maximizing returns for shareholders. For further information, please contact:

Silver Crown Royalties Inc.

Peter Bures, Chairman and CEO

Telephone: (416) 481-1744

Email: pbures@silvercrownroyalties.com

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This release contains certain ‘forward looking statements’ and certain ‘forward-looking information’ as defined under applicable Canadian and U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements and information can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘should’, ‘expect’, ‘intend’, ‘estimate’, ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘continue’, ‘plans’ or similar terminology. The forward-looking information contained herein is provided for the purpose of assisting readers in understanding management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Forward-looking statements and information include, but are not limited to, the proceeds from the Final Tranche will be used to partially fund the second tranche of the Company’s silver royalty acquisition on the Igor 4 project in Peru, as well as general and administrative expenses. Forward-looking statements and information are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions that, while believed by management to be reasonable, are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual actions, events or results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information, including but not limited to: the impact of general business and economic conditions; the absence of control over mining operations from which SCRi will purchase gold and other metals or from which it will receive royalty payments and risks related to those mining operations, including risks related to international operations, government and environmental regulation, delays in mine construction and operations, actual results of mining and current exploration activities, conclusions of economic evaluations and changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; accidents, equipment breakdowns, title matters, labor disputes or other unanticipated difficulties or interruptions in operations; SCRi’s ability to enter into definitive agreements and close proposed royalty transactions; the inherent uncertainties related to the valuations ascribed by SCRi to its royalty interests; problems inherent to the marketability of gold and other metals; the inherent uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and expenses; industry conditions, including fluctuations in the price of the primary commodities mined at such operations, fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and fluctuations in interest rates; government entities interpreting existing tax legislation or enacting new tax legislation in a way which adversely affects SCRi; stock market volatility; regulatory restrictions; liability, competition, the potential impact of epidemics, pandemics or other public health crises on SCRi’s business, operations and financial condition, loss of key employees. SCRi has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers are advised not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements or information. SCRi undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking information except as required by applicable law. Such forward-looking information represents management’s best judgment based on information currently available.

This document does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, securities of the Company in Canada, the United States or any other jurisdiction. Any such offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy the securities described herein will be made only pursuant to subscription documentation between the Company and prospective purchasers. Any such offering will be made in reliance upon exemptions from the prospectus and registration requirements under applicable securities laws, pursuant to a subscription agreement to be entered into by the Company and prospective investors. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, the reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

CBOE CANADA DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS NEWS RELEASE.

Copyright (c) 2025 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Heliostar Delivers Strong First Quarter 2025 Results

Investing 10 Mins Read

Q1 2025 Operational and Financial Highlights

  • Gold equivalent ounce (‘GEO’) production of 9,082 GEOs and sales of 8,034 GEOs for Q1 2025. The Company is on track to achieve annual sales guidance of 31,000 to 41,000 GEOs for 2025
  • Preliminary interim consolidated cash costs of US$1,175-1,275 per GEOs sold and consolidated all-in sustaining costs (‘AISC’) of US$1,375-1,475 for Q1 2025. The Company is on track to achieve its annual cash cost guidance range of US$1,800-1,900 per GEOs sold and AISC of US$1,950-2,100 per GEOs sold
  • Average sale price of US$2,875 per ounce of gold for Q1 2025
  • Closing of the quarter with US$27M in cash and no debt

Heliostar Metals Ltd. (TSXV: HSTR) (OTCQX: HSTXF) (FSE: RGG1) (‘Heliostar’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to report preliminary interim results for the three months ended March 31, 2025 (‘Q1 2025’), which corresponds to the fourth quarter of Heliostar’s fiscal reporting year 2024-25.

The Company plans to host a corporate update webinar on May 13th, 2025, at 8:00AM Pacific Time/11:00AM Eastern Time. Full fiscal year-end reporting is anticipated in late July 2025.

Heliostar CEO, Charles Funk, commented, ‘The first quarter of 2025 was a very strong, first full quarter of production for the Company. We restarted production at La Colorada, fully paid off the acquisition debt and returned lower costs than budgeted.

‘In Q2, production is expected to decrease due to drawdown of inventory on the leach pad at San Agustin prior to a planned restart of primary mining activities later in 2025. We remain well on track to meet our production and cost guidance for 2025.

‘Heliostar exited the quarter with a strong cash balance of US$27M. This allows us to expand the drilling program at La Colorada and commence the Company’s largest drilling campaign at our flagship Ana Paula project, where we see potential to increase the high-grade underground resource.

‘Looking forward, in Q2, we are focused on delivering an updated technical report to support a planned increase in production at La Colorada and completing the permitting to allow for the restart of mining at San Agustin. The Company intends to utilize the cash flow from operations to increase annual gold production from both producing mines, as well as build Ana Paula with minimal equity dilution.’

Operational and Financial Results1

Key Performance Metrics La Colorada San Agustin El Castillo Total
Ore processed 2 t ore 959,365 ——- —— 959,365
Gold production 3 oz Au 4,109 4,412 257 8,777
Silver production3 oz Ag 18,279 8,595 546 27,421
GEO production 4 oz GEO 4,312 4,507 263 9,082
Gold sold oz Au 3,112 4,172 497 7,781
Silver sold oz Ag 12,468 9,936 523 22,927
GEO sold 4 oz GEO 3,250 4,282 502 8,034
Cash Cost 5 US$/GEO sold 1,175-1,275
All-In Sustaining Cost (AISC) 5 US$/GEO sold 1,375-1,475
Cash and cash equivalents US$ 26,900,000

 

Notes:

  1. Results are preliminary in nature and subject to final reconciliation.
  2. Production from San Agustin and El Castillo from re-leaching.
  3. Metals production before payable deductions.
  4. GEO production and GEO sold are based on weighted average sale prices for Q1 2025 of US$2,875/oz Au and US$31.95/oz Ag.
  5. These measures are non-IFRS financial measures.

Non-IFRS Measures.This news release refers to certain financial measures, such as all-in sustaining cost, which are not measures recognized under IFRS and do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS. These measures may differ from those made by other companies and accordingly may not be comparable to such measures as reported by other companies. These measures have been derived from the Company’s financial statements because the Company believes that they are of assistance in the understanding of the results of operations and its financial position. Certain additional disclosures for these specified financial measures have been incorporated by reference and can be found in the Company’s MD&A for Q4 2024 available on SEDAR+.

Cash costs.The Company uses cash costs per ounce of metals sold to monitor its operating performance internally. The most directly comparable measure prepared in accordance with IFRS is the cost of sales. The Company believes this measure provides investors and analysts with useful information about its underlying cash costs of operations. The Company also believes it is a relevant metric used to understand its operating profitability and ability to generate cash flow. Cash costs are measures developed by metals companies in an effort to provide a comparable standard; however, there can be no assurance that the Company’s reporting of these non-IFRS financial measures are similar to those reported by other mining companies. They are widely reported in the metals mining industry as a benchmark for performance, but do not have a standardized meaning and are disclosed in addition to IFRS financial measures. Cash costs include production costs, refinery and transportation costs and extraordinary mining duty. Cash costs exclude non-cash depreciation and depletion and site share-based compensation.

AISC.AISC more fully defines the total costs associated with producing precious metals. The AISC is calculated based on guidelines published by the World Gold Council (WGC), which were first issued in 2013. In light of new accounting standards and to support further consistency of application, the WGC published an updated Guidance Note in 2018. Other companies may calculate this measure differently because of differences in underlying principles and policies applied. Differences may also arise due to a different definition of sustaining versus growth capital. Note that in respect of AISC metrics within the technical reports, because such economics are disclosed at the project level, corporate general and administrative expenses were not included in the AISC calculations.

Statement of Qualified Persons

Gregg Bush, P.Eng., and Mike Gingles, Qualified Persons, as such term is defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, have reviewed the scientific and technical information that forms the basis for this news release and have approved the disclosure herein. Mr. Bush is employed as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, and Mr. Gingles is employed as Vice President of Corporate Development.

About Heliostar Metals Ltd.

Heliostar aims to grow to become a mid-tier gold producer. The Company is focused on increasing production and developing new resources at the La Colorada and San Agustin mines in Mexico, and on developing the 100% owned Ana Paula Project in Guerrero, Mexico.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

Charles Funk
President and Chief Executive Officer
Heliostar Metals Limited
Email: charles.funk@heliostarmetals.com
Phone: +1 844-753-0045		 Rob Grey
Investor Relations Manager
Heliostar Metals Limited
Email: rob.grey@heliostarmetals.com
Phone: +1 844-753-0045

 

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information
This news release includes certain ‘Forward-Looking Statements’ within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and ‘forward-looking information’ under applicable Canadian securities laws. When used in this news release, the words ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘target’, ‘plan’, ‘forecast’, ‘may’, ‘would’, ‘could’, ‘schedule’ and similar words or expressions, identify forward-looking statements or information. These forward-looking statements or information relate to, among other things: In Q2, production is expected to decrease due to drawdown of inventory on the leach pad at San Agustin prior to a planned restart of primary mining activities later in 2025. We remain well on track to meet our production and cost guidance for 2025. This allows us to expand the drilling program at La Colorada and commence the Company’s largest drilling campaign at our flagship Ana Paula project, where we see potential to increase the high-grade underground resource. Looking forward, in Q2 we are focused on delivering an updated technical report to support a planned increase in production at La Colorada and completing the permitting to allow for the restart of mining at San Agustin. The Company intends to utilize the cash flow from operations to increase annual gold production from both producing mines as well as build Ana Paula with minimal equity dilution.

Forward-looking statements and forward-looking information relating to the terms and completion of the Facility, any future mineral production, liquidity, and future exploration plans are based on management’s reasonable assumptions, estimates, expectations, analyses and opinions, which are based on management’s experience and perception of trends, current conditions and expected developments, and other factors that management believes are relevant and reasonable in the circumstances, but which may prove to be incorrect. Assumptions have been made regarding, among other things, the receipt of necessary approvals, price of metals; no escalation in the severity of public health crises or ongoing military conflicts; costs of exploration and development; the estimated costs of development of exploration projects; and the Company’s ability to operate in a safe and effective manner and its ability to obtain financing on reasonable terms.

These statements reflect the Company’s respective current views with respect to future events and are necessarily based upon a number of other assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by management, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties and contingencies. Many factors, both known and unknown, could cause actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from the results, performance or achievements that are or may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information and the Company has made assumptions and estimates based on or related to many of these factors. Such factors include, without limitation: precious metals price volatility; risks associated with the conduct of the Company’s mining activities in foreign jurisdictions; regulatory, consent or permitting delays; risks relating to reliance on the Company’s management team and outside contractors; risks regarding exploration and mining activities; the Company’s inability to obtain insurance to cover all risks, on a commercially reasonable basis or at all; currency fluctuations; risks regarding the failure to generate sufficient cash flow from operations; risks relating to project financing and equity issuances; risks and unknowns inherent in all mining projects, including the inaccuracy of reserves and resources, metallurgical recoveries and capital and operating costs of such projects; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties; laws and regulations governing the environment, health and safety; the ability of the communities in which the Company operates to manage and cope with the implications of public health crises; the economic and financial implications of public health crises, ongoing military conflicts and general economic factors to the Company; operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities; employee relations, labour unrest or unavailability; the Company’s interactions with surrounding communities; the Company’s ability to successfully integrate acquired assets; the speculative nature of exploration and development, including the risks of diminishing quantities or grades of reserves; stock market volatility; conflicts of interest among certain directors and officers; lack of liquidity for shareholders of the Company; litigation risk; and the factors identified under the caption ‘Risk Factors’ in the Company’s public disclosure documents. Readers are cautioned against attributing undue certainty to forward-looking statements or forward-looking information. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be anticipated, estimated or intended. The Company does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements or forward-looking information to reflect changes in assumptions or changes in circumstances or any other events affecting such statements or information, other than as required by applicable law.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249931

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Sport

Shedeur Sanders gets apology from NFL team for prank call during draft

Sport 4 Mins Read

The first two days of the 2025 NFL draft were dominated by what didn’t happen – namely the free fall of University of Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders, a presumed first-round pick, and the intense scrutiny and reaction from traditional and social media that followed.

Sanders’ plight was exacerbated Friday – Rounds 2 and 3 passed that night without his selection – when he also received a prank phone call that he initially thought to be from general manager Mickey Loomis of the New Orleans Saints, a team then believed to have interest in Sanders. (Loomis actually chose Louisville quarterback Tyler Shough in the second round with the 40th overall pick.)

Sunday afternoon, the identity of one of the pranksters was confirmed – necessitating a surprise apology from yet another NFL club which employs the caller’s father as its defensive coordinator.

The Atlanta Falcons released a statement, which read: ‘Earlier in the week, Jax Ulbrich, the 21-year-old son of defensive coordinator Jeff Ulbrich, unintentionally came across the draft contact phone number for Shedeur Sanders off an open iPad while visiting his parent’s home and wrote the number down to later conduct a prank call. Jeff Ulbrich was unaware of the data exposure or any facets of the prank and was made aware of the above only after the fact. 

‘The Atlanta Falcons do not condone this behavior and send our sincere apologies to Shedeur Sanders and his family, who we have been in contact with to apologize to, as well as facilitate an apology directly from Jax to the Sanders family.

‘We have also been in contact with the NFL and will continue to cooperate fully with any inquiries we may receive from the NFL league office.

‘We are thoroughly reviewing all protocols, and updating if necessary, to help prevent an incident like this from happening again.’

Jax Ulbrich issued a statement of his own apologizing to Sanders, calling his actions ‘completely inexcusable, embarrassing and shameful.’ Jax Ulbrich also claimed to have spoken on the phone with Sanders and thanked him for taking the call.

The NFL has been investigating the matter since the incident occurred and has been in contact with the Falcons.

Sanders, a son of Hall of Famer and Colorado coach Deion Sanders, was eventually drafted Saturday in the fifth round by the Cleveland Browns. His wait sparked intense debate about why NFL teams were passing on him, speculation running amok about his pre-draft interviews, his famous father’s role and – in the simplest terms – his talent level and where it should appropriately slot him, though few draft observers prognosticated him to go any later than the second round.

The debate reached a heated level on ESPN’s air Saturday afternoon, when longtime draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr., an ardent supporter of Shedeur Sanders’ abilities, blasted the NFL.

Friday’s prank call began with Sanders answering his phone and saying, ‘What’s going on?’

He then put the call on speaker phone for those gathered around to hear at his draft party in Texas.

“This is Mickey Loomis here, of the Saints,’ the voice on the other end says.

The prankster told Sanders: ‘It’s been a long wait, man. We’re gonna take you with our next pick right here, man.’

Sanders replied: ‘Yes sir, let’s be legendary.’

The prank continued, ‘But you’re going to have to wait a little bit longer. Sorry about that.’

The phone call ended and Sanders is seen saying, ‘What does that mean?’

Later Friday night, after the third round finished with him still on the board, Sanders posted on X: ‘Thank you GOD for EVERYTHING.’

Jeff Ulbrich spent 10 seasons in the NFL as a linebacker for the San Francisco 49ers. He retired following the 2009 campaign and immediately moved into the coaching ranks as an assistant and steadily climbed the ladder. He was hired by the Falcons in January after spending most of last season as the New York Jets’ interim head coach.

Shedeur Sanders’ brother, former Colorado safety Shilo Sanders, went undrafted but agreed to join the Tampa Bay Buccaneers as a free agent Saturday evening.

All NFL news on and off the field. Sign up for USA TODAY’s 4th and Monday newsletter.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Knicks two-time NBA champion dies at 88

Sport 2 Mins Read

Basketball Hall of Famer Dick Barnett, who played guard in both of the New York Knicks’ NBA championship seasons, has died, the team announced Sunday. He was 88.

Barnett died in his sleep overnight at an assisted living facility in Largo, Florida, according to multiple media reports.

He was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 2024 as a player and as a three-time All-America for Tennessee A&I (now Tennessee State) teams that won three consecutive NAIA championships (1957-59) —the first HBCU program to win a national title in basketball.

‘Throughout his illustrious career, Dick Barnett embodied everything it meant to be a New York Knick, both on and off the court,’ the Knicks said in a statement. ‘He left a positive impact on everyone he encountered and this organization is incredibly fortunate to have him be such an integral part of its history. His jersey will forever hang in the rafters of Madison Square Garden, and his play throughout his career will forever be a part of Knicks fans memories.’

The Knicks won NBA crowns in 1970 and 1973 with large contributions from Barnett, a 6-foot-4 all-around player known for his unique ‘fall back, baby’ shooting style. His legs flew backward when the left-hander shot jumpers.

It worked for the native of Gary, Indiana, who was selected by the Syracuse Nationals with the fifth overall pick of the 1959 NBA draft.

He played for Syracuse for two seasons (1959-61) and one season for the Cleveland Pipers of the American Basketball League (1961-62). He returned to the NBA with the Los Angeles Lakers (1962-65) and finished his 14-year career with the Knicks (1965-74).

An All-Star in the 1967-68 season, Barnett averaged 15.8 points, 2.9 rebounds, 2.8 assists and 29.8 minutes in 971 NBA regular-season games. He also averaged 15.1 points, 2.7 rebounds, 2.4 assists and 27.3 minutes in 102 playoff games.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Bucks on brink of elimination after disastrous Game 4, Lillard injury

Sport 2 Mins Read

It couldn’t have gone much worse for the Milwaukee Bucks on Sunday.

After suffering a 129-103 loss to the Pacers in Game 4 at Fiserv Forum, the Bucks will head to Indiana facing elimination in the first round of the NBA playoffs for the third consecutive season.

There isn’t much time for Bucks head coach Doc Rivers to ponder season-saving solutions. Game 5 is at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

The Bucks played without Lillard when he had a blood clot that kept him out a month before returning for Game 2 of this series.

Kevin Porter Jr. provides some hope

If there was any bright spot for the Bucks it was the play of backup guard Kevin Porter Jr.

Lillard left the game with just under six minutes left in the first quarter with a non-contact leg injury. Porter was thrust into a larger role and finished with 23 points, six assists and five rebounds.

Giannis Antetokounmpo carrying a heavy burden

Giannis Antetokounmpo came into the game averaging 35.7 points and 14 rebounds per game in the series.

He struggled in the first half with eight points on 3-for-10 shooting. But he still finished with 28 points, 15 rebounds and six assists.

The short-handed Bucks couldn’t keep up with the go-go Pacers, who were led by Tyrese Haliburton (17 points and 15 assists) and Myles Turner (23 points).

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Celtics overpower Magic in final four minutes of Game 4

Sport 2 Mins Read

Jayson Tatum collected game highs of 37 points and 14 rebounds to lead the visiting Boston Celtics to a 107-98 victory over the Orlando Magic on Sunday in Game 4 of their NBA Eastern Conference first-round playoff series.

The second-seeded Celtics made 30 of their 32 free-throw attempts in the victory, which gave Boston a 3-1 edge in the best-of-seven series.

Orlando tied the score at 91 on a Wendell Carter Jr. putback with 4:18 to play, but the reigning NBA champions seized control by scoring 10 of the next 11 points.

Four of Boston’s five starters scored at least 18 points. Jaylen Brown had 21 points and 11 rebounds, Kristaps Porzingis tossed in 19 points and Derrick White finished with 18.

Paolo Banchero led seventh-seeded Orlando by scoring 31 points. Franz Wagner added 24 points, six rebounds and seven assists, and Carter finished with nine points and a team-high 11 rebounds.

Cory Joseph (12) and Anthony Black (10) were the other Magic players who scored in double figures.

Boston’s Jrue Holiday missed his second straight game in the series with a hamstring strain. Boston’s reserves were limited to six points, all from Sam Hauser.

The Celtics were 9 of 31 on 3-point attempts (29 percent). Orlando was 8 of 30 from behind the 3-point arc (26.7 percent).

Boston led 32-29 after one quarter and stretched its lead to nine, 42-33, with 7:46 left in the second. Orlando went in front 48-46 on a Banchero layup with 3:17 remaining in the first half. The Celtics finished the quarter on a 7-0 run and had a 53-48 halftime lead.

Orlando edged Boston 27-26 in the third quarter, which left Boston with a 79-75 advantage entering the final 12 minutes. Brown scored 11 of his 21 points in the third.

The Celtics can advance if they win Game 5 on Tuesday night in Boston.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

How Timberwolves won Game 4: Ant-man, a hole in the middle and timing

Sport 4 Mins Read

Game 4 of the Minnesota Timberwolves-Los Angeles Lakers series was fantastic.

Especially offensively with Minnesota’s Anthony Edwards and Julius Randle and Los Angeles’ Luka Doncic and LeBron James combining for 133 points – 43 from Edwards, 25 from Randle, 38 from Doncic and 27 from James.

The back-and-forth contest ended with the sixth-seeded Timberwolves taking Game 4 116-113 and taking a 3-1 lead against the third-seeded Lakers in their NBA Western Conference first-round playoff series.

Edwards’ two free throws with 10.7 seconds remaining – after Minnesota challenged a call and won, putting Edwards on the line – put the Timberwolves up 116-113, and Lakers guard Austin Reaves missed a 3-pointer to end the game.

Just 13 teams have come back from a 3-1 deficit, and it hasn’t happened since 2020 when Denver did it twice. The Lakers’ attempt to extend the series starts with Game 5 Wednesday in Los Angeles (10 p.m. ET, TNT).

Anthony Edwards’ star continues to rise and shine

For all the talk about the next “face of the NBA,” Edwards meets the requirement. He’s an elite talent. At the 2024 Paris Olympics, U.S. men’s basketball and Golden State coach Steve Kerr said, “As he continues to learn how to use (his talent) and be efficient in his play, he will be unguardable.”

He possesses the charismatic smile, the confidence and the humor. He’s in commercials (and yes, it would be nice if he limited his fines from the league office.)

Edwards put together one of his finest playoff performances, scoring a game-high 43 points on 12-for-23 shooting, including 5-for-10 on 3-pointers and 14-for-17 on free throws, and adding nine rebounds and six assists.

The talent and efficiency that Kerr mentioned was all there in Game 4. Edwards had 16 points, four rebounds, two assists and one block in the fourth quarter as the Timberwolves eliminated a 10-point deficit to start the fourth.

“You could see it in his eyes that he was going to bring it home,” Minnesota coach Chris Finch told reporters.

Lakers’ roster flaws exposed

Lakers coach JJ Redick mentioned the lack of rim protection after losing Game 3. Starting center Jaxson Hayes played just four minutes as the Lakers’ lack of versatility was exposed in Game 4.

It was Los Angeles’ best offensive game of the series (40% on 19 made 3-pointers and stellar production from James and Doncic). Yet, it wasn’t enough even though Rui Hachimura scored 23 points and Reaves added 17.

Take away shooting stats from James and Doncic, the Lakers were just 18-for-43 from the field (41.9%). Four Lakers played at least 40 minutes, including 46 minutes, 14 seconds from James and 45 minutes, 49 seconds from Doncic. The Lakers simply can’t go many minutes without either one on the court.

Minnesota’s bench outscored Los Angeles’ 25-6, and Dorian Finney-Smith, who played 41 minutes, was the only Lakers reserve to score.

Saving the coach’s challenge for the right time

Finch could’ve used his coach’s challenge long before 10 seconds remained in the fourth quarter. But he saved it. Saved it for just the right time.

With the Timberwolves leading 114-113 and in possession of the basketball, Edwards drove toward the rim. James swatted at the basketball, and it went out of bounds off of Edwards – Lakers ball, the refs ruled.

However, Finch still had his challenge available, and he used it, knowing that under review, the referees could call a foul on James. That’s what happened, sending Edwards to the free throw line for two foul shots, which he made.

Finch used his coach’s challenge 74 times this season and was successful 46 times (62.2% rate) – in the middle of the pack. A coach gets one challenge, and if they get that correct, they get one more in a game.

Each team has a behind-the-bench assistant coach who helps the head coach determine if a challenge should be made. For the Timberwolves, that’s Jeff Newton who has worked in the NBA for the past 12 seasons and had a stint as a head coach in the G League.

Finch and Newton made it work at the right time.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading