To counter this point, did you ever consider that the company may have realised, through the financing and takeoff negotiations that this mine was going to be very hard to develop? that the chances of success, as a junior who needed debt financing were very slim?
Tremont had the leverage from two past deals that were not underhanded but definitely helped them edge any future competition.
Firstly, they own 50% of the project already, meaning that anyone who wanted to fund cradle to develop would need to JV with tremont. Likely, anyone who could fund the project would be in competition with them, and having seen first hand the Red mountain JV and the all the complications of that (with BHP and peabody), It is not to be taken lightly how much that weighs an investment decision.
Secondly, as I have already stated, they owned enough shares to ruin competing offers and also down-vote any equity-diluting funding options. This ties the boards hands a lot.
It has been a long journey to this point, but considering the leverage position of the board and tremont, the board did well to get nearly the highest price of the stock's life. If it truly wanted, tremont could of blocked every advancing decision and just waited for the company to die of inaction.
Tremont had enough shares to attack the board directly as a significant shareholder.
This is not under-handed, these were tactics, and they work because all juniors need money to advance and I have no doubt that a couple of years ago you would of been celebrating the board for bringing them and their funds onboard.
So once again I ask, give me any EVIDENCE of underhanded tactics and I will take you very seriously, but if you are just conjecturing about this because you feel that this project was worth more than $110million, then please use your words wisely.
Expand
