this may be an old subject now.

By subject coincidence, I was trying to explain to someone on SH FNC site that just because Mineralfields sold a few shares, did not express lack of confidence or manipulation. In fact, prior, MF had phoned FNC office to let them know and then also told them another investor would be buying back. I'm not sure how the fund works. They must have two systems because I imagine in most cases MF has a fund where they invest through a company's private placements without the knowledge of their investors. But in this FNC case, one individual investor needed out for personal reasons, while another individual investor wanted in.

I was communicating with MF because I was curious about two things, since they hold 30% of FNC, would they take an active role in developing Lac Lamalee and do they have any strategies that takes advantage of a lowered SP.

MF response:

"...we seek to maximize shareholder value for our investors, so whatever increases the share price of an investment is of interest, but our mandate as a passive investment fund prohibits us from being activistic investors...we do not do anything that would wear out our welcome."

But passivity can mean many things. I hate the irritating tension of dinner engagements with a passive aggressive friend who is married to the wrong lady for too long. Did Smith feel he had to entertain MF's approval or disapproval prior to the decision of spinning off Lac Lamalee. Was MF "passive" when they gave their approval?

-sg