RE:RE:Warrants will not cause a wave of selling plus an M&A theory @gold_diggers1: I meant I was part of the collection of investors that traded the stock higher in May - this was not an organized group working hand-in-hand. I think a lot of us on this board were participating in that push and, as I recall, it was @EdgarL that was routinely posting some of the VWAP metrics needed for the triggering event (thanks for sharing that @EdgarL). I have supported the stock to the tune a core position of >>1mm shares that I trade around. The purpose of my post was to clarify the warrant situation for fellow investors so that they don’t fall for the doom & gloom being painted by others.
@EdgarL: A friendly takeout is the ideal scenario because:
1) We get a meaningful bump in the share price (takeout premiums have been >50% for most of the past couple years, which is better than the 35% one sees during the bull market).
2) In an all-stock deal, we would get a near term re-rating of the value of the project as the multiple of the larger company is applied to AVK's project and for those of us that stick around post deal we would continue to see our investment appreciate as the project advances toward development.
3) It is possible that we could see an above average premium paid because an acquirer has to deal with Elliott directly and thus can't take a low-ball offer to shareholders (this situation also contributes to why AVK trades at a discount to its peers).
End of the day, I can't think of a more rationale reason as to why AVK hasn't accelerated the warrants other than the company is tied up in M&A talks, which prevents Elliott from exercising as they are an "insider" (due to their 60% ownership). If AVK never intended to accelerate the warrants why did they embed this clause in the 2014 financing? It's not for the benefit of investors, it's for the benefit of the company.