Yeah too - perhaps a bit of prior knowledge of the size & scope of the deal, AND the envisaged terms would have been 'nice'.
I can't see it impacting the Fortress deal per se? How would it have impacted Fortress one way or the other?
But it would/could (?) have been good to me, a patient investor, if only to have afforded a window of review. We, as shareholders still don't know. Is the share simply up on the deal as disclosed as of now? That has driven this share up from $1.8o to over $2.00?
Into the future it isn't clear what the reporting obligations are to an Australian Co. of an American(?) SPV are. If it is an American deal(?) - we don't know. It could be a deal structured anywhere. Bahamas(?) Antigua(?) Do IMF-Bentham account for this as minority investment, or will there be an attempt to consolidate the operation of the SPV, to give us a fuller picture of what 16% odd of the IMF-Capital invested is doing, or will IMF-Bentham need to consolidate their 25% interest of the investment.
In both cases - I think they won't. The SPV will simply become a line item
However as the SPV is soon to benefit something to the tune of 43% of the into-the-future-Case-Investment off its current base $2,630/($2,630(my est) + $3,370m) that represents a sizeable portion of where IMF-Bentham's piloted path plans to go.
That's my (as an IMF-Bentham shareholder) interest, becoming a sizeable part of Fortress' FIIG(NYSE) interest, and I am not even sure I'll be paid a dime.
