Allow me to follow a path of a logic sequence.

"My predictions CHM will offer stock for FNC 17.5% and Cliffs will make an offer for CHM" -rago

Knowing what we've experienced of Cliffs in ROF, they will make a "generous" offer, which in no way is generous to they guys from Glencore invested in Champion. Larson will say no, and Cliffs will want to backdoor a hostile takeover. That makes Cliffs a potential predator of Fancamp, for 17.5% voting guarantee for the offer.

Knowing this, Champion is already in conversation with Smith to buyout Fancamp's interest in Fermont. But Champion's money is tied into Fermont drilling, so they'll offer shareswap. CHampion gain 100% control of their company, and FNC becomes simply a large shareholders, without owners rights. But by doing that, Champion still leaves their self vulnerable to FNC takeout and control of the FNC's share's voting rights.

SOLUTION:

1) Is there a means of signing an agreement that makes FNC vote Larsen's way, and should FNC be taken out, a poison pill? Seems unlikely to be effective.

2) Champion offers shareswap to direct ownership of Fancamp shareholders. Thus diversifying the 17.5% (or more for NSR) to many owners and not a single entity that could be bought out. Is this legal?

3) Champion get Wisco, Arcelor, or more logically Xstrata (due to Glencore) to begin a bid war.

4) Wait it out, see if FNC is put upon by a hostile. If there is one, then place our percentage up for auction to the highest bidder, and CHM be damned? This way FNC benefits two ways. It avoids being taken out totally and it profits.

Any experts out there care to add grounding to my craziness?

Any Champion protectionism is good news for Lac Lamalee.

-sg