RE:Drivers seat nowwhy are you saying "sorry Calgary"?
Probably because you are assuming I want NMX holders to lose, just like you are assuming everything else...business doesn't work that way.
remember Charlene, It's not "
I want" people to lose money, it's "
I see" people losing money....too many roze glasses like yourself that see everything green.
Try taking those glasses off and see that "green beautiful grass" is actually "Brown dry weeds"...
You assume 5 offers rejected because they were fire sale...the truth is you have no idea why they were rejected...maybe one of the offers refused was the NMX FB group...who knows...
But if you want to talk things that make business sence, then I am telling you the offers would not make sence to bail out old investors and even less so share future profits with old investors. The secured inevstors could decide to refuse offers that are too low for them to recover their investment especially if they do have better offers but that does not mean they fully recover their original investment... accepting multiple bidders and selling to the highest offer is exactly what
I TOLD YOU BEFORE "LIQUIDATION" but ofcourse you can't see it with your rose glasses on.
I guess will see in July...not far from now
Charlene wrote: We have 8 serious offers. We rejected 5 offers that were probably 'firesale offers' (sorry Calgary). This is a 3billion+ company in full operation, which requires $1billion in addtional investment. So, there is $2 billion sitting on the table with NMX, which is why there were more than 20 parties interested, 13 LOIs, with qualified LOIs remaining. The question is who will want this more and how high the are willing to pay for an acquistion.
Suppose credit claims come to $200m. Then if the acquirer pays:
- $400m, then shareholders get $0.23/share
- $600m, then shareholders get $0.47/share
- $800m, then shareholders get $0.71/share
With this healthy competition, why would someone pay $600m or $800m to get $2billion. Good luck all.