RE:later rather than soonerAgain, if it means that they can get the lithium carbonate for batteries out of the mine quicker than announced, ... it might be okay. But, yes, you are right, in retrospect, they should have been less Helm's centered. Maybe they have bids. Would they need to disclose those if they have? I wonder what the president does. Why do we have to have a thrid party involved?
georgef1027 wrote: 12/20/17 - The company announces that the Helm agreement has been terminated. This announcement comes a couple of weeks after Management visits China. My assessment is they knew the termination was going to happen and went to China to test the waters for a replacement.
2/7/18 - About a month after their visit to China the company announces that they have received 12 NDA's representing 12 parties interested in doing "something" with the company.
To me, this already is an example of a lack of a sense of urgency that some of us have been complaining about here for some time. It took them 4 weeks to only get as far as gathering 12 non disclosure agreements.
By rights, by now, they should have forwarded to these 12 interested parties a request for bid that outlines, in detail, exactly what they are seeking in terms of a take or pay contract and/or an equity investment. This request should also indicate that the interested party must submit their offer within 10 business days.
Then, lets give CRE management 5 business days to review the offers and where necessary seek clarification with some of the interested parties on their proposal. A decision is made by CRE and within 3 business days they forward a formal commitment letter to be executed by the selected interested party. The parties both execute and they enter into a 5 business day negotiation and execution of the necessary documentation.
That's a 23 business day process which should have commenced on 2/7/18 and be completed by the end of March.