GREY:ALXDF - Post by User
Post by
Malpeque2on Jul 22, 2019 9:49am
334 Views
Post# 29946038
Easycoder
EasycoderHello to you,
The original amalgamation agreement was filed a month or so ago under Chantrell Ventures on Sedar. They show they had a subscription offering for about $17M Can at 3.88. THe money was being held pending the deal with Osisko SpinCo into Chantrell. That offering has closed. They show Roosen bought a small amount of shares at the $3.88 offering price.
It's one thing for Agnico to vote NO. It's another for them to actively solicit other shareholders to vote against the O3 offer. Are they doing this?
I posted on CEO.ca a while back on AZX under cigarbutts that shareholders of AZX should file suit in Canada against the BOD for the change in the "break fee" to favor the O3 bid in the middle of two parties involved in competing bids. The BOD should not try and "stear" a deal or favor one party over the other in a competitive bid situation. IF I were Agnico I would be pissed too! It is a viable strategy to vote no, let the stock bid expire, if you can win the vote, AVOID HANDING O3 THE BREAK FEE, and then come back with the higher cash bid. The extra $2M would go to stockholders instead of O3.
Core gold just did something similar a month or two ago. THey had a deal with a low break fee. And a 60 day go shop period. As soon as another potential offer showed up they terminated the "go shoP' and raised the break fee to steer the bid to the Titan Metals. Surprise Surprise, even though they had the 2/3rd's vote the judge in BC threw the amalgamation deal OUT.
Why would Alexandria BOD want to steer this AZX merger to O3? At Agnico they get no BOD seats in the merged company? Whereas with O3 they get one or two? I don't see the reason the dramatically increas the "Break FEE" mid bidding? AZX BOD certainly aren't doing AZX public shareholders any favors here by doing this. It would also discourage Probe or Eldo who are neighbors from doing a higher bid too. To pay O3 that increaded Fee.