Heiko Ihle: Fantastic. Thank you very much. Go ahead.
Allen Palmiere: No. Anything else, Heiko, I’d be happy to address. Otherwise, we will be talking soon.
Heiko Ihle: Excellent. No. And I’ll get back with you. Thank you very much.
Allen Palmiere: Thanks Heiko.
Operator: Your next question comes from [Bradley Johnson with Silver City]. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I’m most interested in the Back Forty Project. I get most of my information from the Internet. I think unfortunately, we all do, so it’s an opportunity to ask this question directly. One of the things that I see that there’s some value that’s been unrealized is that when Gold Resource sold the projects that you had in Wisconsin, which were part of Aquila and you accepted paper for that transaction, and then basically then you forgave that transaction in exchange for a percentage of gold metals – or GreenLight Metals, sorry. And I’m questioning how that could happen because at one point, you owned all of it. And then you now own, what is it, 28% of the gold metal stock.
Allen Palmiere: GreenLight.
Unidentified Analyst: Is there any way to back that up and actually get paid for that? Because that infusion of cash would go a long ways to, I think, bridging the gap from where you are today to where you need to be, say, in Q2 of next year. And I’ll hang – I’m not hanging up. I’ll just mute and listen to the answer.
Allen Palmiere: Bradley, you have obviously done your homework. It’s a very good question. The sale by Aquila of certain assets to a newly incorporated company called GreenLight Metals was entered into before we acquired Aquila. And in fact, the transaction had closed before we acquired it. So we had no influence over the sale of those assets in Wisconsin to GreenLight. The terms of the sale contemplated a significant cash payment to be made, I can’t remember the exact time frame. I think it was the end of last year, although it could have been Q1 of this year. And GreenLight has been unable to raise money in the current economic environment or current market environment. The debt that we had was unsecured, and that was, as I said, negotiated by prior management of Aquila.
And the options available to us were very, very limited. Like GreenLight continues to try and raise money, although I will say that in today’s market, it’s unlikely they’ll do so. But what we chose to do was convert the debt obligation to equity because otherwise, it was just going to be a bad debt. If, in fact, they’re ever able to take the company public at a reasonable market value, we would be able to get our cash out through sale of shares potentially. Yes, it’s not a situation I’m completely comfortable with. But when we were faced with the fact that they could not pay the cash, we had no real alternatives. Again, it’s something we inherited. We’ve made the best of it. I tend to agree with you. I would rather have the cash than the shares but that wasn’t an option.
Hopefully, I’ve addressed your question appropriately, Bradley.
Unidentified Analyst: You did. And I’ll be candid, I mean, this is what these calls are for, is that again, reading the Internet, I strongly – I don’t want to know the answer specifically, but I do believe that what you just described to me because the person at GreenLight Metals, I won’t mention his name, was also the person who orchestrated the deal. And by all definition, that’s self-dealing. And I know that I’m not an attorney but at some point, this is one of the, I’m going to call it albatrosses, around the neck of Gold Resource Corporation is what I consider to be the credibility factor. And I think if that deal hadn’t taken place the way it was, I think that people would look at that Back Forty Project that’s probably be more viable and more worthwhile.
So I’ll leave it at that, but I think that you’ve probably given that a lot of thought. But from the investor standpoint, I think it would be certainly good to readdress that issue and how that came about because I think that’s what the investor public is really looking for, some solid answers as to why and how things happen. So again, I’ll thank you for your time.
Allen Palmiere: Bradley, I know you did not specifically ask me to address that statement, but I will anyway. When we acquired Aquila as part of our due diligence, we obviously looked at the transaction and whether or not it was done in accordance with securities laws in Canada. It was. As a statement of fact, it was. The Board of Directors, the independent Board of Directors excluding any related parties, voted on the transaction and approved it. And by doing so, they, at least, ticked the boxes. I don’t disagree that on the surface of it, it looks as though there was perhaps preferential treatment to insiders. However, they did, in fact, at a time when Aquila desperately needed money, they did provide some cash at the time of closing.
So it’s not as though Aquila did not obtain some benefit. And certainly, they went through all of the requirements of the securities legislation to ensure that the transaction was appropriate and appropriately approved. So we did look at it. Whether or not we agree with the transaction is irrelevant because it closed before we acquired Aquila. I hear what you say, I understand it, but we did do our appropriate due diligence at the time.
Unidentified Analyst: Thank you.
Allen Palmiere: Thanks Bradley.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from [David Top with Top Holdings]. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi. I hope you can hear me?
Allen Palmiere: I can hear you David.
Unidentified Analyst: Thanks for taking my question. I have a few questions which is basically all going in one direction. So I’ll just shoot off my first question. You don’t have the answer. It’s fully just to tell me if I’m getting things right or not. As an investor, the way I see the entire company is it looks to me like it’s a company which has a lot of assets but is very low on working capital. Is this general perspective right or wrong?
Allen Palmiere: Our current working capital is between $14 million and $15 million. So we do have working capital where we – our cash as $6-plus million is lower than I would like to see but our working capital is more than adequate for a company like this.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. So I’ll tell you why I’m asking this question because in the past four quarters, the company is losing money. And as you can see, the grade of all the mines and the minerals are going down. And it seems to be getting worse and worse as has happened in all mines where the grades become lower and lower and becomes less and less profitable. So we’re putting aside all other projects and all other properties. Is there any way that Gold Resource is going to be profitable in the near future. I’m not speaking about big projects that could be done. Just continuing what’s going on right now, continuing to mine what’s – the mine is right now, is there any way Gold Resource is going to turn to be profitable in the near future?
