R36,It would be not prudent to assume that the liquidator is...

R36,

It would be not prudent to assume that the liquidator is going to sell BMG's stake quickly or that it has to sell it in the near future.

My understanding of a liquidators role is that they need to obtain a fair market price for sale of the companies assets.

In most cases when a liquidator takes over the value of the companies assets takes dive however in this case the value of the Hawsons project has arguable increased because CAP continues to spend its money on the BFS process and this is increasing its value.

As long CAP keep up expanding the work that it does on Hawsons as it cannot afford to do nothing this is increasing BMG value.

A prudent liquidator may just wait until the market returns to normal such as after the new Chinese leadership have settled in. This is likely to take another 6 months and this would also be true for any real Chinese buyer who may emerge to become CAP's partner if you follow what is happening in China.

As I understand it if CAP wishes to bid for BMG Hawsons stake they would be obligated to pay a fair market price which ASI provided in court their valuation of $60+ million. Since that time the Hawsons valuation has increased not decreased.

I ask therefore how could CAP (or ASI for that matter) afford to pay this figure?

The other figure extensively published by CAP of $13m is only available to a bono fides third party. CAP and or ASI are not third parties.

If the $13m eventuality was ever going to happen why has it not occurred over the last six months when as you point out this time is now long and past.

Silvergate seem to be sitting for a long time and have not made a 100% take over bid for CAP rather they wasted a lot of time by trying with Conglin Yue help to get 40% of the BOD seats.

Silvergate seem to have thrown a lot of money around to acquire the Hawsons Project but they could have had it 3 years ago if they were prepared to pay for it at that time.

It seems that then and now this is not what ASI can do.

Which leads to the question is does Silvergate have the money to pay the full price for CAP or Hawsons which other seem to suggest too that they do not.

The claim by ASI that it offered CAP a deal with unnamed Steel Mill that was rejected by CAP, given that Nick would welcome with both arms wide open a genuine Steel Mill offer as CAP's partner when nobody else can get one one leads one to think that ASI offer was rejected because it was not remotely suitable.

If CAP has to raise money to fund the BFS because the status quo remains it would probably have to make a rights issue which will dilute all those shareholder who cannot afford to pay.

Why would you stay on board as a shareholder if this was your situation.