Nemaska Lithium Inc NMKEF

RE:RE:RE:RE:8th Monitors Report On PWC Website

[mick1888]

Thanks TaN. Based on what you say, that would imply that IQ are not directly involved in the Bid Process, and this would explain why 'that Minister' made it public that they had up to 300m to invest. I would surmise this then puts IQ in a very strong position in determining the outcome of existing retail investment. But I would also suggest that it also puts them in a very awkward position. You would not have to be Inspector Clouseau to work out that if retail were to be left out in the cold, the Quebec Government would be implicated in that decision.

They know retail will have to be included as it would look extremely bad that they wasted tax payers money and pensioners retirement pots, when in fact they could have avoided the loss. The problem they have is convincing a partner to leave enough in the kitty for all stakeholders. But then again, 300m is a nice carrot, and being in control of the rules (permits etc) is a good stick.This would explain the desperate language some have used to down play expectations, lowering the bar helps their negotiating position with a partner.

Intriguing times ahead, would make a great story for a political and business thriller (without the car chases of course).

GLTA longs  

Takeactionnow wrote: Every (serious) bidder seeking to acquire the business (as opposed to simply the assets or some of the assets) will already have had discussions with IQ (and others) so as to have an understanding as to what may be possible. Their bid is simply made conditional upon that support materializing. Since maintaining the business as a going concern is preferable to parties already invested in the corporation, and since decision-makers on the bids can allocate value to non-financial considerations, the highest dollar value bid does not necessarily win. Despite what some posters on Stockhouse may have been suggesting, Nemaska is not insolvent and this is not (unless sufficient interest fails to materialize) simply an asset sale.

mick1888 wrote: A question for all - How can bidders incorporate IQ within their bid structure (IQ have 2 - 300m to offer) when the Bid Process expressly forbids collaboration between parties?

No doubt more than one bidder would like to utilise this substantial sum, and in many different ways. It helps spread the risk and you have the Government on board which is always a good 'start in life'.

And on the same theme, does the inclusion of IQ money not give an unfair advantage to Pallinghurst as these entities had preliminary discussions pre CCAA (that Minister had at least one dinner with the two present)?

GLTA longs

Takeactionnow wrote: The beauty of this process is that it is not like a government contract bidding process, where ordinarily the lowest price conforming bid wins (i.e. price is the deciding factor). Here, two or more bids can be deemed equivalent taking into account differing factors such as inclusion of existing shareholders. Canadian courts have upheld this approach in the corporate arena, whereby directors can apply broader considerations than just the bottom line. Since there are eight bidders, an auction may just happen, which would generate an even better result. The bidders should be able to revise their terms to include elements viewed as valuable in the evaluation process (such as inclusion of existing shareholders).

phantom666 wrote: If 2 or more bids seem reasonable then an auction will be held on July 14th or at a later date agreed upon. Each bidder will know the others bid before the start of the auction and only up bids will be allowed.