RE:VOTE NO - HERE'S WHY. UPDATED LIST
Good list but for the meeting too lengthy
For the mtg, I suggest a shorter summary version in addition to a reworded more detailed version and fax it to Dev, David, and Lucas on Monday so they have time to decide who and how to address. Or just the summary version?
For title I suggest simplicity
Summary of Concerns of the Proposed FCU DML Merger
1 THere are 2 flagship projects, PLS and Phoenix How does 108 million lbs uranium with low production costs, rapid payback, and growing resources with yet to be released assays of summer drilling compare to only 60% of the 70 million lbs of uranium, DML's share only 42 million lbs, and a project with anticipated high costs due to water prone flooding, and possibly remote mining methods for some of the high grade uranium? And how does nearby Gryphon be of any importance considering poor summer drill results and only minimal resources?
2 PLS has a definitive PEA, no other DML project has for comparison, but it is understood a PEA is in progress for Phoenix. So why not have the 2 definitive PEA's for comparison?
3.OK as is,
4 DML's offer effectively values PLS at US$200millionor less than US$1.50 per lb of in situ uranium. Is this fair and logical compared to other takeovers?
5 Each of the Fairness opinions specifically stated they were not based on valuations of thier respective companies, and did not consider any liabilities. Shouldn't there be such definitive reviews of each company?
6 Isn't the proposed merger prposal deficient in consideration of the above key questions?
7 What would be the proposed business plan going forward of the merged company?
Dunno, perhaps others can reword the above better than me, but keep the questions short.
As Stanley has pointed out, keep things professional and you might get answers.
So suggestions only for you