RE:Geodude13 can you explain thisMaybe, but I'm not a lawyer.
If I 'm close?, and have interpreted the legalize...Waterton has two ways or recouping their US$7.5MM investment:
- convert the investment into RNX shares at a fixed price and at their chosing for the price referenced (in other words RNX needed cash and diluted the existing shareholder - not an uncommon event for a junior miner); or (at Watertons choosing)...
- recognize the value of the investment (US$7.5MM) as pre-payment for any joint venture activities for the development of the asset. (I'm not sure if there is caveat on Phase of development or extent of the development project. (Maybe you can add some more cut and paste on the entire term sheet?? You seem to pretty good at cutting and pasting stuff...oops sorry!)
If you implying the asset equity was sold cheaply (US$7.5MM); you're right. It wasn't good for existing shareholders...However....
If RNX was about to go broke and forfeit the entire show it would be a
very prudent move. 5
0% of something is still 50% of something in the future. 100% of nothing is still nothing, ziltzh, zero, kapput.
It's a no brainer if that was the best offer on the table. I'd assume management are reasonable men and maintained their fiduciary commitments to the stockholders.
Maybe you should have anted up US $10MM, then you might not be so bitter; you'd be a wealthy man holding 50% of whatever you value Dumont at. The market punished the share price and its time to move on.
By the way what do you value Dumont at?? And by the way; why don't you respond in kind to my questions?? You could cut and paste your response...I don't mind but the bold type and 56pt font isn't adding to your credibility.
Sorry....its getting late and my dish-pan hands are slipping off the keys.
Regards