RE:Red DragonA couple of things to think about before I sign off for the day. First, while I am not a Canadian Solicitor nor have I read RMC's charter and by-laws, it is my understanding that in certain instances, a 20%+ holder of shares cannot vote on a transaction they are involved in. If you consider NSU's 19.99%, plus any other shares or warrants they own, and couple them with the voting arrangements with directors and management, they exceed the threshhold and may not be able to vote on the transaction. I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable on this.
Second, the "Chinese" do not have a live offer, and the historial offer they mention is compleltly inadequate in my opinion. The most important thing they accomplished was to make crystal clear the disparity in ownership of the new "NSU" going forward. Receiving only 1/3 of the new NSU is a steep price to pay in equity ownership decline for use of cash on their balance sheet and a mine in Eritrea that will never be given the value it would get in a friendlier jurisdiction.
These are my thoughts. Others are likely to disagree.