RE: Does anyone have a credible plan? Great, a well thought, credible post to address,
Can I begin with your initial premise? FIU does not have negative working capital, I think you confused what has occured. FIU has at least 10mil IN working capital to the best of our knowledge it was published in the last report. You are confusing the impairment charge with working capital. Furthermore, the company is not obviously having liquidity issues. The credit loan facility has not been drawn upon as of yet, it is possible that the credit faciltiy was created as means for FIU management to make it look like FIU was in a distressed position, before you call that conspiratoral consider the following
1) EZ is currently under maintance care and not running, which leaves MWS
2) Looking back on the past reports, MWS is highly profitable, so what is the 10mil for? Remember we were never told what it was for, management was intentionally vague about that.
Your negative capital is incorrect (can you post where you got that information from), the bridge loan has not been drawn on (can you publish where you found that, the company is required to report the drawdown), and why do you think we do not have working capital? Because FIU management said we needed a credit facility put in place? The credit facility is doing what it was supposed to do, make you think that FIU does not have working capital, notice that managment never said that we do not have working capital, they actually reported that we have 10mil in cash, they left you to assume there was no working capital.
As the large shareholder group pointed out (sprott etc.) the debt holders should have been pressured into negotiating the terms, they lose out if dilution occurs, FIU keeps running and all that changes is the debt holders (village etc.) own a higher percentage of the company.
The market is valuing the comapny at 0.14/share because that is all that is gauranteed under the current conditions of the asset sale, the market knows that if the vote went through class actions would follow and dry up the contigency fund.
Furthermore, you claim about the assets worth, is countered by RBC, who stated that
In December 2011 RBC reported that Mine Waste Solutions had a net asset value of Cdn $443.4m and Ezulwini to have a net asset value of Cdn $276.4m, for a total net asset value of Cdn $719m. Three months later in March 2012, a First Uranium report stated that RBC had delivered oral opinions that the asset sale of Mine Waste Solutions for Cdn $335m to AshantiGold, and the sale of Ezulwini to Gold One for Cdn $70m was “…fair from a financial point of view.” Analysis of RBC valuations seem to indicate between December 2011 and March 2012 the net asset value of Mine Waste Solutions and Ezulwini fell Cdn $314m.
And under bankruptcy protection we would not be in a distressed position, we would have all the time in the world to sell the assets, and the valuation would have to pass through the courts. RBC would not get away with giving 'oral opinions' anymore.
Sprott and the large shareholders have proposed 3 credible plans
1) renegotiate the terms of the debt
2) find further financing
3) get higher bids
Do not think I have not done my research. I am fully aware of the position shareholders are in and what the most likely outcome will be.
There is not enough support for MWS to be voted through, look at reports, there are 5 major shareholders, 3 are against the asset sale, 2 are related parties and cannot vote. And we are against it.