RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Looking better and better "My suggestion is when it gets into the details, to read the prospectus and not the MD&A."
No argument on what the prospectus implies, but the MD&A is the latest and greatest document, so when something is said 10 times with no ambiguity then I am left believing the lawyers have giving this a green light as being an option they can exercise.
Seriously Cangator, go back and read the MD&A. Each and every time redemption is talked about , they include the divy but each and every time they speak of a conversion, the divy is left out. I have to believe that this is not a typo that occurred multiple times. Their intent seems clear to me.