RE:RE:RE:RE:FYIThey have also assured us that the technicality has been addressed and is no longer an issue. But, that sadly cost us so much - horrible, rushed deal terms and another15 months without any decent analyst coverage. Had the original deal gone through, I suspect the last 15 months would have been far less painful.
Wino115 wrote: Yes, this was confirmed in our shareholder inquiry call and the initial deal parties included at least 1 US firm. However, the issue precluding that first deal from going through was described as something purely "technical" which sounded to me like it could have been anything from timing, regulatory issue, deal approval issue, etc...and not a bank turning away. They were pretty adamant that if they could have gone ahead with the initial underwriting syndicate and the terms worked out they would have, but for the technical glitch that popped up. So we ended up with an all Canadian syndicate and bought deal with warrants.
qwerty22 wrote: Just to go back to the OO. My memory from Wino is they had an alternate deal lined up before the OO and it fell through. Maybe Wino can confirm that. That sounds like them exactly butting up against this changing sentiment.
It's probably now more important they prove themselves to be a solid, serious company than to pump themselves as the next unicorn. Sounds like the tortoise wins the race atm.