Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Dianor Resources Inc V.DOR



TSXV:DOR - Post by User

Comment by heavymonzyon Sep 23, 2011 7:00pm
287 Views
Post# 19078827

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: stock is over sold

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: stock is over soldBishop ... to get the extension ... Dianor would have had to put up 2% of the commitment. Do you understand this to mean 2% of the $10 million?
The agreement doesn't say anything about the regulators needing to approve any extension as the extension only applies to repayment and not extension to access of capital as far as I can tell.
If the 2% applies to the aggregate of $10 million ... you couple that to the accruing interest on the $1 million and TEC in itself is adding significantly to the liability pressures going into the next 3 months.
Dianor can't get an extension for a second year if they are in any sort of default ... unless of course TEC allows for it regardless ... but ... it's not the second extension that matters at the moment ... it's the first one.
I think if investors knew that the 2% fee was waived or paid ... an announcement saying as much would put that to rest.  It will be in the next financials I'm sure but it seems to me these type of things are more pressing to know due to the urgency of fiscal matters at present.  If there wasn't a such a large liability overhang for 2011 ... one could feel more comfortable that some internal funding could get the company over the hump ... but ... I think the level of burden is too lofty to assume that this could be the case.
TEC can get paid irregardless of what happens with the company ... they only need to recover $1 million over security of assets that were to never get below $30 million if memory serves me well ... so ... I don't think TEC would be too concerned about recoverability of the loan.
I agree that an extension being granted would be good news ... and that is why it is of high interest to know if that 2% fee applies to the entire $10 million ... and if so ... how was the payment made when the last financials didn't support that kind of possibility.
I do admit that I may have not interpreted the financials correctly ... but ... in my view ... it looked like $200 grand was not available to dole out.
I wonder if $200 grand of the TEC monies ($1 million) was used to service the damn extension fee ???  ... now if that is showing in the last financials ... it would be valuable if someone could point it out.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>