Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum First Uranium Corporation T.FIU

TSX:FIU - Post Discussion

First Uranium Corporation > No to the sale of Ezuwini
View:
Post by lefmike1 on May 12, 2012 7:12am

No to the sale of Ezuwini

No     to the sale of Mine Waste Solutions.

.

No    To the sale of Ezuwini

.

NO      To any dilution of shares.

.

No        To giving the Board of Directors any authority to negotiate.

.

No         to changing jurisdiction from BC to Ontario (At this time) .

.

NO !!      NO!!       NO!!       NO!!       NO!!

Comment by dubsbs on May 12, 2012 7:47am
My initial thoughts were vote no to everything when I read cirrcular on sedar ( thanks to lefmike posting link). Now i'm up in the air aboutthe dilution!!!!!! Help with more insight. I did read all critical mass had to say!!! Very good read !!!
Comment by lefmike1 on May 12, 2012 8:12am
dubsbs I think... it's actually quite simple,  if we let this thing go to dilution we ( shareholders) would be diluted into oblivion, Originally we did not know we had the right to NOT go to dilution... So if we did dilute, , the June 2012 bondholders would have a vast majority control and we know where their sympathies lie...with Management as they were promised full payment regrdless of ...more  
Comment by dubsbs on May 12, 2012 8:28am
Thanks Lefmike !! I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on your answer. I totally agree with you . I hope this plays out in our favour. If it comes to receivership I believe shareholders are still better off. At least we will have transparency and someone we can trust. Also I don't think in receivership we would have to deal with escrow account's. the receiver's won't want ...more  
Comment by stude on May 12, 2012 9:02am
Sat morning to ALL : I am 100% agree with you Mike , LET FIU GO TO RECEIVERSHIP if FIU have to , at this stage of the game , We should GAMBLE it ALL . At least FIU will get out of mgmt hands ( I hope after this Deon and his team get NOTHING , NO PARKAGE , NOTHING and NOTHING , they have been LIARS , they liar US in the past , and the present , how can I trust their reconmendation in this proxy ...more  
Comment by uranicynic on May 12, 2012 9:21am
To my knowledge, if a company goes into receivership everyone including employees have to line up to get paid. They are then ranked by priority and paid out of any funds recovered. Deon and cronies would no longer be in charge of their own fate and would have to take whatever the receiver deemed fair. I'm assuming the 2013 debtholders would rank highest because they are secured by assets. Not ...more  
Comment by stude on May 12, 2012 9:33am
I hope HIGHER BIDS come out too BUT that is just HOPE . If we want to have THE HOPE , FIRST and for most WE HAVE TO GET FIU OUT OF DEON AND BoD HANDS. FIU will be better without these South Africa corrupt crooks .  
Comment by lefmike1 on May 12, 2012 9:59am
If we look at what happens in a receivership there are different grades of claimants to the assets. I think the very first one would be the Secured Bond holders,  I think secured debts they owe due to operations would be next then, the unsecured debt holders such as the Note holders then the rest of the unsecured debt holders then the share holders.  Meaning (US and Aglo Gold Ashanti ...more  
Comment by uranicynic on May 12, 2012 11:15am
I believe employees come before shareholders. The point is management has a very real interest in not letting this get to bankruptcy. They've already negotiated there own exit strategy and that will be cancelled by a bankruptcy. A receiver is never going to be as generous to them as they would be to themselves. Another point that I can't let go of is the line in the production report that ...more  
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities