GREY:NMKEF - Post by User
Comment by
mick1888on Dec 27, 2019 6:58pm
90 Views
Post# 30495718
RE:RE:RE:Linkedin comment from nemaska concerning pallinghurst
RE:RE:RE:Linkedin comment from nemaska concerning pallinghurst Agree Nanuk....
Nanuk37 wrote: Maybe its only that they need to have the NMX / PL LOI to expire before moving forward with any financing sollicitation process that could could include an amendment to PL offer. But we can not ignore to superior court bond file that will receive a decision in January/ February if everything goes normally. Finally all the above being under the CCAA protection and any deal would have to be approved by the court.
I think there is a legal game being played between the bonds trusties and this whole CCAA move with a simultaneous trading halt and it is part of NMX's strategy somehow. IMO.
A lot of people have compared falsely SWY case with NMX but in the case of SWY there was no trading halt so it completely let runned down to 0. Small shareholders were claiming that as being unfair ect.
In our case, we might get screwed anyway but there is a part of me that think this halt would not be ON if there was not a intention to protect the SP from the shorts who would of bring it down to 0 in few days.
For those of you who use tweeter, there is some quote from NMX PR department that are interesting and also form Fitzgibbon Ministers.
Cheers and wish all the best !