RE:RE:RE:ETG/HCU vote designation has changed The devil was in the details of the heirs, successors, assigns language in the SSL private placement, and the tricky non-affiliate set up of HCU ... ya wonder why SSL financed and took back debt not a full load of equity? Nolan playing I'm smarter than you?
I never liked the SSL principals taking down personal ETG positions once SSL had taken an equity interest, nor did the doubling down of some personal exposures to the ETG equity through the HCU structure impress me as totally beyond any question of conflicting personal interests ... but it likely indicates some of those number guys see what some of the trailer park saw a long time ago - up value.
As for TRQ, I agree with any disgruntled former shareholders. I thought the TD fairness opinion was suspect ($3.50 long term CU ... how's that looking?!) the independence of their management and board was wanting (as Pentwater complained bitterly), and the attempted end run on the shareholder vote that was likely to defeat the Rio offer was a highly questionable manoeuvre, as was the final accommodation of dissent and appraisal for small shareholders. Mongolia and Rio worked a good cop bad cop deal, you have to think from Rio's point of view they were going to take that debt forgiveness to Mongolia out of donebody's hide - to them it's all a net cost equation, and it looks like the TRQ minority took it on the chin.
RF exited at what ... the equivalent of $280 back in 2010?
I'll withhold further comment unt we know what if anything is going on. My own view of the anticipated cash flows from updated metals prices, and the obvious assumption OTLLC is going to advance the Lift 2 and Heruga schedules plus expand the mill and mine capacity .... says hang in for cash flow if they don't take out the chequebook and make a reasonable offer. Yes we should leave lots on the table, yes we can and still see a big leap up off the currently low market trading value.
cg