flyby

NR says "The assets are comprised of three chromite deposits and associated claims held by Cliffs subsidiaries". I read that as follows

- 3 chromite deposits: BT, BL, and 70%BD;

- Associated claims: CLF has quite a few land claims for exploration around the neighbourhood.

The 111M shares would not fall in the above two categories. Normally they would be call "holdings" and would be spelled out, especially for cases which may be subjected to special conditions, such as ROFR for the 111 M shares when the option was set up in 2009(?). Bruce of KWG should know this since the NR on these shares was issued, link

http://agoracom.com/ir/Noront/forums/discussion/topics/642103-non-disclosure-agreements/messages/2015118#message

This is a simple item. If the court has made the ruling after its consideration of the factual evidence then it should spell out the reason for rejecting KWG bid to get back the shares with a 50% premium (reportedly this was the offer by KWG) over the pro-rated value of the shares in the total package. It's kind of strange that nobody is talking about this. KWG should know, NOT should know, the judge should know and the court records should show all this.

Perhaps there is something in the work that us mortals are not suposed to know for fear that it would clog the feable minds, lol.

This is one question AGORACOM should pose to Frank and Allan in a video interview. Simple question: Who owns the 111M shares? Perhaps, in the big scheme of thing the owneship would not change the outcome an iota. If so, someone should enlighten us retail shareholders.

goldhunter