RE:RE:RE:RE:News I believe we are of the same mind, but looking at the issue differently. I too would want to see they pay back the 35mil rather than convert the debt, even if it is only 1%.
What I am primarily miffed about is the sloppy public acknowledgment of the exception to seeking minority shareholder approval prior to CGX making the necessary release to shareholders and the stipulation that any approval is contingent on the approval of FEC as per the terms of the loan. This could have been done more tactfully which would have made it read like this had always been on the table and not a hasty cover for internal failings (ie the Company and FEC entered into an MOU during the offering that would look to secure financing in March if and where the need arose, etc). I have to note that we, as minority shareholders, are still waiting on results, while FEC is more than likely tapped into the live data stream. A $3.10 valuation may still be an undervaluation for all we know and the "taking with one hand and giving with the other" playbook is getting old (especially as we know FEC is not going to let this investment tank).
I am not one to readily throw shade on any of my investments, but as it is the first time seeing those stipulations in any of their releases regarding FEC loaning funds to CGX I am cautious to believe that this is only to bolster CGX's bargaining position. And whilst it can be interpreted as positive, as it could mean a JV is on the horizon, it could also be the sticking point to any JV that is presently on the table. I hope the latter is not the case and that CGX will pull a bull out of a hat.
All I do know is I am truly tired of these releases before the release. As we all know, heads have rolled for sloppy releases in the past. This one should also raise the spectre as to whether someone is fit for their role or (which I suspect is the case) having to do unnecessary work to keep the lid on insider trading.