If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
Are we of the view that the Company is so incompetent and/or so untruthful that it states a position were shares it owns (not 'shareholders own, the Company owns) this would not dilute shareholders as a group? If we do think this way, why on earth would we be invested? Were these shares to be sold by the Company, the sale of these existing shares is not the same as the issuance of new shares. The shares in question were acquired from Cornerstone as a result of the merger. Cornerstone owned said shares in Solgold pre-merger.
A member of a small group of Solgold shareholders I discuss matters with has been in touch with Solgold about the matter of the Solgold shares the Company owns whether there would be 'dilution' were they to be sold. The reply was that these shares are already issued and accounted for in the Company's issued and outstanding shares so no dilution. So there we have it: the Company states clearly that, it its opinion, no dilution will apply were said shares to be sold.
No my friend. I am not mistaken. Issued shares is all that matters. If it were not then BHP selling all its shares would be dilutitive in that they have sat on them for years. Share price times issued shares equals market cap. You may be thinking about free float which is a different matter. Solgold selling shares owned by Solgold Canada is not dilutitive. Of they cancelled the shares, shares issued go down and, all things being equal, the share price would go up.
Many thanks Ryan,
Your interpretation of my opinion reads well to me. Of course, none of us know what will happen - we really don't. But we have done so much research - perhaps hundreds or even thousands of hours between us over the last few months. And just like getting fit, we are starting to see results. We must continue to work hard and together. We have done this so far which is why we now have options. For those of you who attended, who could not be impressed with the performance of Michael Cotter? Sincere, humble and talented. For those of you who did not attend, please accept Mr Cotter's invitation to further presentations later this week. We have to remember that we are going into the Class Action phase now so please be careful with your words and actions - look after your fellow COPL shareholder as well as yourselves. All the best Ryan.
It's a binding order by the High Court my friend. It cannot be stopped. Mr Justice Yamauchi has made his decision. Other matters are able to be brought to Court of course but this order is binding which is why Mr Justice Yamauchi was very thorough ensuring that there was plenty of time for questions at the end of the Hearing.
Many thanks Ryan.
I've already set out my opinions about what Summit could have in mind as well as referring to Michael Cotter and his Class Action project. These are the 'hoping for the best and planning for the worse' scenarios that I read somewhere else recently.
Based on the research I have done so far, I have no reason to query whether PK has carried out his duties professionally and lawfully. That COPL was in such a state for him to be appointed in the first place will be a key element of the Class Action and has nothing to do with PK.
It does not seem unusual to me that, given the state of COPL and the activities of certain parties, Summit are now using their lien to acquire the assets covered by the aforementioned. Again based on the research I have done, both PK and Summit have a reputation for professionalism. The same cannot be said of Anavio. Setting aside their role at COPL, recall their violation of shorting rules and subsequent fine by the Norwegian financial regulator. Summit has only acted in the way that any sensible party would act in my opinion given what they had to contend with. These are my opinions although, of course, hard evidence does exist of shorting, conversions and so on. I do not wish to comment in more detail there as this could impinge on what Michael Cotter has in mind to best serve shareholders.
Many apologies Ryan, I have been busy today but have time now to address your queries. The comments below are my opinion and we are all entitled to have an opinion.
1. I remain hopeful of a reasonable outcome at Summit.
2. Summit wish to detach Anavio from COPL's valuable assets following Anavio's behaviour over the last 2 years. I do not believe there is evidence that Summit wish to detach shareholders from those assets (or, indeed BP either).
3. Summit will acquire the assets in due course - 17 June in all likelihood.
4. At that stage, Creditors and equity holders remain within COPL.
5. COPL's assets will be extracted by Summit as a result of their lien.
6. BP does not have a lien on the assets so it was opportunistic by Mr Pontin to ask Mr Justice Yamauchi to be treated 'pari passu' with Summit.
7. My opinion is there is scope for Summit to select parties within COPL at that stage in relation to 'what happens next'.
8. My opinion is that the codified treatment in the event of insolvency will apply to |COPL but then fact that the assets would be with Summit as a result of the lien gives Summit an element of discretion.
9. I do not believe that Summit were targeting small shareholders in their recent actions. I believe the sole target was Anavio. Summit have an outstanding reputation in their market which I am sure they wish to keep. Based on my inspection of PK's Affidavits, I believe that Summit could have grounds to take legal action against Anavio and would therefore not be surprised to see Summit commence legal action against Anavio in due course.
10. Michael Cotter and his partners including Joel Barry have excellent legal backgrounds, a brief review of the Law Society website shows this.
11. Mr Cotter is obviously very keen to get started. Obviously Anavio and certain COPL directors and management will be on his initial list of targets and more may follow.
12. With the above in mind, I envisage a busy few weeks with Michael Cotter and his team working on the Class Action (he has some wonderful evidence already with more coming) along with Summit moving matters along so that they stay within the law but do not put their hard earned reputation in jeopardy.
The above is my opinion Ryan. Apologies again for the delay.
Discussions have been going on with Michael Cotter for many weeks and his list of expressions of interest now totals over 500 shareholders. There are no constraints on which parties Michael Cotter may lodge claims against. Meanwhile, Summit has used its lien on the assets to claim them. Once Summit acquires the assets I.e. extracts them from COPL, they will own them and have discretion about what they wish to do next subject to any legal constraints.