RE: RE: RE: Mark Farrell
| V:FUT Market Book By Price 10:17:48 |
| Bid | Ask |
| Orders | Size | Price | | Price | Size | Orders |
| | | 0.005 | 9,897,500 | 24 |
| | | 0.01 | 1,098,000 | 9 |
| | | 0.015 | 792,000 | 5 |
| | | 0.02 | 1,010,000 | 7 |
| | | 0.03 | 1,200,000 | 3 |
| | | 0.035 | 800,000 | 4 |
| | | 0.05 | 535,000 | 2 |
| | | 0.065 | 14,000 | 1 |
| | | 0.08 | 414,000 | 1 |
| | | 0.10 | 70,000 | 2 |
| | | 0.125 | 15,000 | 2 |
| | | 0.195 | 3,000 | 1 |
A 400,000 sell order at 3.5 cents is new. The rest are unchanged. There's a sell order at 1/2 cent which vanishes at the close and re-appears at the open the next day.
In other things: I'm wondering why the statement: "If the entity with whom Futura transacts "is not a like" business, the transaction must ensure that no change in control occurs". What if that other company brings a new direction in business and money with them? Shouldn't they be in charge with the majority of shares?
So I'm a bit confused on the subject. Shareholders looking at Futura only see a company struggling to survive. Is the company in a position to dictate who controls what? Maybe they are.
Maybe the assets are worth more than most figure. It was implied in an earlier post, Futura has approx $7 million to cover all secured creditors. Would i give the company say $100,000 to help them during the CCAA, if I had no hope of getting my money back? I would be at the bottom of the list, so all the older claims will be settled first.
The DIP lenders Don Ross, David Beutel, David Campbell and Ted Dzialowski would know this. They also seem to want to retain control even if a new company comes in. Interesting.
Putting it all together, it appears something could come out of it all. But I don't know how shareholders will be affected and if any value will be left.