Koo & Tada - I might be wrong as I have not read the whole contract, only RVX's NR on the ROFR but if I am correct, there might be confusion between the words termination and expiration. HL gets their money refunded if the ROFR contract is terminated or in other words ended during the term of the contract of which the end is drawing near. If the ROFR contract is allowed to expire, I don't see why they would be owed the $8 million dollars back. That goes against the theory of an options contract which is what it is. It is up to RVX and HL to arrive at new terms if they wish. This might be an extension without fee (not really prudent by RVX) or extension for fee or no extension at all. Maybe there are other possibilities but these seem the most likely. If they chose, RVX could include that $8 million refund with the fictional $10 million for possible refund in an extension contract but don't have to. Where this conversation started was with the proposal of HL paying $10 million for a short extension into the Fall. This would still leave a very strong chance of expiration rather than termination. There is also the unfortunate possibility of with or without an extension that BoM fails and the ROFR contract expires with no duty for RVX to pay the $8 or $18 million back to HL. I agree that with a $multibillion sale, $18 million is nothing but we don't have that yet. There are numerous ways for HL to lose their money so why do an extension if they aren't serious about bidding. This is all conjecture without seeing the wording of an extension contract but according to normal options contracts, their only real advantage is that if they are serious, they can ensure that they will get to buy if they want it.