RE:RE:PAPUA PM: Delayed securing finance not canceled I think everyone feels the same.
Different threads of thought would be;
1- Perhaps they legitimately have reasons to withhold a portion of the capital due to potential Canadian acquisitions that are good bargains, or good ROI on organic growth
2- Perhaps, conversely, they want to motivate share holders to vote for some crappy "spinoff" to a private company, and share holders are more motivated to vote for such if the SP is as low as possible and they are not getting a dividend every month. This is the negative view. They might pull something like this regardless of prior resistance to it.
"We will now recommence work with the corporation's advisers towards a reorganization that possibly separates the Canadian and Papua New Guinean businesses,"
Does that quote mean they *might* do the transaction anyway? I think they alluded to it being off the table, but who knows.
3- Perhaps they will return the capital, split the two companies into two public entities, and reinstate a dividend. Or keep the whole as a single company.
I suppose we will see in a month.
I still fail to see the enormous synergies achieved from splitting the company in two, and instead see duplication of many fixed costs (two CEOs, CFOs, board of directors, listing costs, etc.)