Nemaska Lithium Inc NMKEF

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

[mick1888]

Tfunds, you wouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that the extension was given to 'preferred' bidders, by this stage there was only 8 still in the process. And the number was reduced soon after closing date, which would indicate they were non complicated low offers (so why would they require an extension). The IQ / PL / Orion bid was obviously an inticate piece of financial endeavour, so it would point to them as the requesters. And as far Bid B was concerned, as stated 'they were the highest bidders and were inclusive of most shareholders', those points alone should have been enough for the Directors to give them more time. The assessers don't forget were supposed to be working on the best interests of ALL stakeholders, never mind the fact that common shareholders are the owners of over 70% of the project.

TFSAfunds wrote: mick... from Nemaska's NR.

The COVID-19 crisis had an impact on the ability of certain qualified bidders to conduct their due diligence reviews and the latter have made known to Nemaska Lithium that they would benefit from an extension of the bid deadline. Accordingly, the Corporation sought from the Court an extension of the bid deadline, having determined, in consultation with the Monitor, that it would be in the best interests of its stakeholders to allow a short extension to give all qualified bidders additional time to complete their due diligence reviews.

Would you mind highlighting where the NR states it was "preferred bidders"! Did Bidder B not make use of the extra time to July 10th? Almost a month later, based on correspondence, they were STILL in the mix... is that not an "extension", albeit not official, but they weren't shut out at that point. It was only what, Aug. 26th when the formal notification that there would be no auction was sent that they were done. That's even ONE AND A HALF MONTHS more additional time that Bidder B had!!! So PLEASE... don't tell the the system was biased! SISP began at the end of January and "ended" at almost the end of August... that's 7 months. How is that not enough time?

Just like the figure of 25,000 "Quebec Shareholders" is bantered around. I thought that was the total number of shareholders everywhere. Can anyone post a link to something official that gives a breakdown... would be appreciated to set this to rest once and for all. 

mick, just because someone says it (posts it)... doesn't make it true!

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?