Nemaska Lithium Inc NMKEF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Bidder B - Not enough time???

[mick1888]

CalAB, I have worked full time both as an employee and as self employed non stop (no unemployed gap) for no less than 43 years. In that time, the most stable the UK has been for the ordinary working people was in the period between1998 to 2008, and guess what - Socialist Government was in power throughout.... ;-) And to be honest, if you have a look at Europe as a whole you would find that most countries jump between Socialist and Conservative power. I doubt you will get a more stable region in the world.

It seems you North Americans have a thing (or should I say fear) about Socialism? You use the word 'brainwashed' quite often, I think the Conservatives have done a good job with you lot..... ;-)

Calgary_AB wrote: Mick,
Quebec is Socialist
Have you heard of any Socialist Country that is not corrupt?
Have you heard of a Socialist Country that gives a $hit about their people?

mick1888 wrote: CalAB, of course you agree 100% with TFSA.

I reiterate, it was acceptable to extend the bid process on 29 June to accommodate their preferred bidders, but not for the competition? And if Bidder B was bogus, how did it reach the final two (from 13, to 8, then 2) in the process?

I recognise my mistakes very well thank you, but that does not take away from the political interference and the skulduggery from Quebec institutions. This is to be expected from a third world or developing nations state, not a country in the G7.

Your gloating does not paint a pretty picture, but hey - ho, you have Gold and righteousness to comfort you.... ;-)

Calgary_AB wrote: Mick, I agree 100% with TFSA here...
Bidder B had enough time and was a bogus bid.

Until you recognize the mistakes you make, you won't fix anything...and you will never know what the theives are getting away with.

Where is your buddy Takeactionnow?
Can you see the set-up now? can you see the pumping had a roll here?
Can you see what I've been telling you for a long time; bad management, stupid deals (either planned that way or very stupid)

First you have to admit to yourself you got played, then you know for next time and smell it from a mile away...can you see why I could smell it while most didn't?
I learned my lesson and cost me a lot of money back in 2000...why can't people listen or at least debate the posts instead of bashing?

mick1888 wrote: Tfunds, I lost part of my pension (big time), but at least I'll get over it, some poor souls will not. So for me, until the robbers take possession of the project, there is still a little (very little) hope. And until then, I will keep scrapping for recognition of what the theives are getting away with, if I can contribute in any way in highlighting the injustice, I will.

As far as the process is concerned, the point I was making and you so carefully avoid is that it was ok for the SISP process to be extended when it suited the preferred bidders, but when there was a possiblity of competition it was closed down. NO EXTENSION....'the rules were made' for all.

TFSAfunds wrote: Nope... you're the one that's SOOO WRONG!!! The rules were laid out plain and simple! If you don't follow them, your bid gets tossed. Bidder B was given ample opportunity to present an appropriate bid, they didn't, they're out! You, obviously, will be on their side because no other scenario gives you anything. This is the first you read about the other bids, yet now you know everything as to how the process evolved. mick... give me a break, will ya!

mick1888 wrote: So wrong Tfunds.....they extend the process for their friends IQ (fitz) / Orion / PL, that in fact rob the shareholders. But then when another (who incidently include existing shareholders and have bid the highest value) needs additional time, they close the door.... ;-[

No doubt when the 'dirty washing is aired' we will find out how much IQ's 300m influenced the process. They made this available to a single player who's only remit was to aquire as cheaply as possible, but could not make these funds available to alternative bids that would keep common shareholders on board. What kind of Governments and politicians do you have that would act in such a 'tin pot state' manner?

TFSAfunds wrote: They had more time than anyone else based on correspondence in August. Did the bidding process not officially end July 10th. Bidder B DID NOT submit a valid bid, but were still given consideration. Bidder B backs out, then wants back in, then ignores the requirements again! Do you think this was actually a serious bid? If you're selling a house, do you accept an offer from someone with no money, no mortgage approval and can't even write a deposit cheque to go along with the offer??? That's what Bidder B was! And they pulled at your heartstrings by saying shareholders are included! It was a bid thrown in hoping there were no other "serious" contenders, that way they could explore pricing and funding if they were the "only man standing". Folks... IT'S OVER!!!