Member Info for addicknt

There are two reasons why someone may want to buy the company as opposed to just it's assets. 1) tax loses, and 2) as a means of gaining quote on AIM.
I don't see either of these being applicable. A foreign domiciled buyer, which is most likely, will not benefit from UK tax losses and second, a major mining company will not need a quote on Aim.
As the company has outlined, this will be an asset sale, leaving a cash shell.

Gooner, I refer you to my earlier reply.

In a way, yes it is. The reason for that is the company has exercised it's rights under the call option element of the agreement.
As I said, if the company had NOT been in a position to exercise the clause, the warrants would have remained in situ. This is a fact.

gooner, please see my earlier reply. You need not only to read the announcement, but also to understand it.

jippy, that comment doesn't mean what you think it means.
What it's saying is that once the call option is announced, under the terms of the accelerator clause, the holders have to pay up and surrender the warrants within five days, or lose the benefit.
Had the call option not be exercised, the warrants would remain in place.

bigmj, indeed. The accelerator clause was something which worked in the company's favour, as it allowed them control over the process.
The warrants would not have been "lost within the next few days."

the warrants via the "call" option element contained within the agreement, is a good move. It clears the overhang and removes any element of uncertainty.
This was not done, as some people have suggested, because they would create difficulties at the point of a liquidity event. I have never seen a warrant document that didn't contain the clause that they could be redeemed at the point of exit. In other words, the warrant holder would have been able to exercise them just before a sale agreement was reached.
Of course, the other reason a call option is exercised is cash, although we are led to believe this is not an issue here. Therefore, the conclusion is it was done with the simple intention of clearing the overhang.
I note that some people on here still don't understand the role of the banks in this process and how they will receive their remuneration. They are not bidders for the assets; they are advisors, working on a contingency basis i.e "No win, no fee". Why do people persist in thinking they will be bidders?

Dark, absolutely, I agree with you. This is a typical market overreaction. However, it will impact profit disproportionately and this is why the market has reacted the way it has.

Not when it's marginal revenue i.e it would, to a large degree, drop straight through to the bottom line.

Razor, multiply 3k x 365 x the price of a barrel of oil and you'll see it is not a small number.

Hi, Jerry. Yes, I had thought about it, but depends upon a few other things either happening, or not. I'd like to, especially as know the chairman.
I'm genuinely confused as to what's going on here at the moment. I find the Cornerstone thing very aggravating and simply cannot accept there's a legitimate reason for the delay. I've sort of persuaded myself that the news blackout is either for positive reasons, or the board decided to reduce communication with shareholders and limit it to what's strictly required. Either way, it's not doing us any favours.
In a way I felt sorry for Anna. An investor relations person has a pretty thankless task. They can only repeat what they are told by the board and get it in the neck from a lot of disgruntled shareholders. Mind you, anyone who had the brass neck to tell me that the delay in publishing the offer for Cornerstone was as a result of not being able to find a french translator, six months after the proposal was made, perhaps shouldn't be in the communications game.

BNC, it's not even remotely plausible.

It would have nothing to with funding. No one refuses to offer finance because a company has an investor relations person on the board.
She has either decided she's had enough and is moving on to other things or, the role was deemed not to be full-time...which it wasn't.
Why she was promoted to the board in the first place, remains a bit of a mystery.
In the meantime, the price continues to tumble. NM had better have some interesting news up his sleeve.

Given the complete lack of news flow for a very long period, you have to ask, what exactly has she been doing?
NM will deal with major shareholders and financial institutions, whilst us private investors have been kept firmly in the dark. In my opinion, the company didn't need this role on a full time basis and it won't be missed.

Q, agreed.

Well, she didn't stay long.

1. Mr Parsons is a decent guy who tried his best. He was operating in a tricky industry where very few exploration projects ever turn into profitable and successful companies. Shareholders were aware of this and knew the risks they were taking. He dedicated much time to shareholder relations and was as transparent as is possible.
2. He is no more than a smooth PR man who knew exactly what he was doing and exploited private investors, recognizing the greed which drives us.
Take your pick.
All I know is that over a four year period his remuneration was £3.2m, and that doesn't include the proceeds of his share sales, which is excessive by any objective reasoning. He is now very comfortably off and shareholders have lost a great deal of money.
I sold out of here when his hubris became too overwhelming and is presentational style too slick. In my opinion, he over-egged the pudding far too often and made some pretty outlandish statements. But I'm not convinced this was done with any malign intentions. I rather suspect it was more a question of his naivety, relative youth and inexperience of running a company. But perhaps it's me who's being naive. His reputation is in tatters, and I wonder how easy he'll find it to raise money in public markets again.
Shareholders were sold a dream...which is exactly what it was...a dream. Nothing more, nothing less.

what his total take from the company was? I'm sure one of you guys will know.

The fact that he deleted it is almost as revealing as the fact he posted it in the first place.

simply do not give away a decent chunk of shares unless you're convinced the beneficiary is going to deliver value and there's something going on. And from his point of view, you wouldn't bother taking up the position unless you were wholly convinced.