Massive Black Horse Chromite Discovery
Black Horse deposit has an Inferred Resource Now 85.9 Million Tonnes @ 34.5%
Message: Supershares
There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic on the other side, including mine which I attached below for information.
In addtion, there were recent PM discussions with other posters who kindly pointed out that individual shareholders who voted NO along with CLF may have the rights to ask for a refund as well (apparently, this is in the package of information that came along with the voting instruction...you can have this verified as part of your DD).
However, CLF has the largest block (111M shares) and this would account for about 27% of the NO votes. This block is the one that represents the large chunk of money, (e.g. $0.07/s x 111M s = $7.8M). One source of money KWG may have available (shortly, hopefully) to "buy off" CLF shares would be the court costs that CLF would be expected to reimburse KWG, if CLF lost the Appeal.
goldhunter
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Question about super share
Hello QQC,
I am not sure if we can say that shareholders have voted NO to the resolution at the last AGM and Special Meeting. As I understand the rules of the meeting (please correct if I have them wrong), the Chair of the meeting can, within the rules, postpone an item on the Agenda of the meeting to another date if there is some indication that the motion would not be carried. Frank can simply adjourn the meeting before the item on supershare conversion has a chance to would come up for discussions. A motion could be also introduced from the floor, and seconded by someone...I believe the meeting is governed by the same rules as shown in the link below.
http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htm
One may call that manipulation, but all this is legitimate in the business (and polical) theatres.
In the meeting before last, a young CLF lawyer was at the meeting and votes NO with all (~110 M shares) to block the conversion. The proposal had a huge majority without the insiders (CL and management included), but it could not have enough to get over the 2/3 requirement when insiders are allow to vote (CLF= NO; Management = YES). Infact, CLF lawyer had a private meeting with KWG before the meeting, so a NO vote at the meeting was not a surprise. But, the meeting was adjourned before the share conversion came up. The proposal was simply aborted to avoid a formal rejection by the 2/3 rule (manipulation, or it is just part of a company's business strategy?). This time CLF and an institution from New York (both were not present at the meeting, but Frank would have plenty of indication, since they do talk to one another. With only 53% vote turn out, CLF 111M shares plus the additional NO votes from others, it was not that difficult to get 1/3 to black the resolution. CLF alone would account for 111/411 = 27%, i.e. only 33.33% - 27% = 6.33% of the votes, or roughly 3.16% of OS. To put this in perspective, KSU (KWG Shareholders United) has over 10% OS, about 2 years ago. Management and company insiders had/have a few %, but the % from wts and options is much larger (149M wts, and 66M opts). Assuming that most of them belong to friendly hands, these wts and opts (if the price is right) could be used to dilute CLF influence without going through any new financings.
If CLF wanted to follow the Casablanca example (the one that's giving it lots of headeaches), it could start a proxy war (even with a motion introduced from the floor). If it had enough support, it could take over KWG board and do their own thing. But I am not sure if this is good for small retail shareholders like us.
goldhunter
I am not sure if we can say that shareholders have voted NO to the resolution at the last AGM and Special Meeting. As I understand the rules of the meeting (please correct if I have them wrong), the Chair of the meeting can, within the rules, postpone an item on the Agenda of the meeting to another date if there is some indication that the motion would not be carried. Frank can simply adjourn the meeting before the item on supershare conversion has a chance to would come up for discussions. A motion could be also introduced from the floor, and seconded by someone...I believe the meeting is governed by the same rules as shown in the link below.
http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htm
One may call that manipulation, but all this is legitimate in the business (and polical) theatres.
In the meeting before last, a young CLF lawyer was at the meeting and votes NO with all (~110 M shares) to block the conversion. The proposal had a huge majority without the insiders (CL and management included), but it could not have enough to get over the 2/3 requirement when insiders are allow to vote (CLF= NO; Management = YES). Infact, CLF lawyer had a private meeting with KWG before the meeting, so a NO vote at the meeting was not a surprise. But, the meeting was adjourned before the share conversion came up. The proposal was simply aborted to avoid a formal rejection by the 2/3 rule (manipulation, or it is just part of a company's business strategy?). This time CLF and an institution from New York (both were not present at the meeting, but Frank would have plenty of indication, since they do talk to one another. With only 53% vote turn out, CLF 111M shares plus the additional NO votes from others, it was not that difficult to get 1/3 to black the resolution. CLF alone would account for 111/411 = 27%, i.e. only 33.33% - 27% = 6.33% of the votes, or roughly 3.16% of OS. To put this in perspective, KSU (KWG Shareholders United) has over 10% OS, about 2 years ago. Management and company insiders had/have a few %, but the % from wts and options is much larger (149M wts, and 66M opts). Assuming that most of them belong to friendly hands, these wts and opts (if the price is right) could be used to dilute CLF influence without going through any new financings.
If CLF wanted to follow the Casablanca example (the one that's giving it lots of headeaches), it could start a proxy war (even with a motion introduced from the floor). If it had enough support, it could take over KWG board and do their own thing. But I am not sure if this is good for small retail shareholders like us.
goldhunter
Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.kwg/kwg-resources-inc#M3hqdclD1R6rU76H.99
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply