Not necessarily. I voted No to both. In spite of the preceding rumors, I donât believe there was any serious negotiating about anything. There were documents everyone already preliminarily agreed to sitting on the table when they walked into the room, they did a review of the documents, and there were legal proceedings at the Notario to finalize the legal standing.
There was no time for any negotiations or drawing up of new documents as the result of said negotiations. That was all just fantasy shareholder entertainment narrative. So I think #4 starts with an assumption which is false and thus the question is a false question.
I will leave open the possibility they may have negotiated where to have lunch or drinks after whatever signings took place.
No it isnât. I answered No to both. Hereâs why.
MDMN doesnât have any or much leverage at all. They are already under contract for an option. They have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NONE, NO expertise in putting a project together. They have no other suitors. The market is terrible for investment right now. They already have a partner but little to no leverage.
AMC isnât going to walk anywhere. They might not honor the request or they might, but theyâre not going to walk. If they are our partner, why not have a cooperative relationship? Why make stupid demands when I already believe (see responses to previous questions 1-3) that making such a public statement isnât going to impact the real market at this time.
Hopefully the answers are showing you that while you think your view is the only rational one, there are plenty of others who see it differently. It would be helpful for all of us to learn to converse with people who see the world differently than we do without resorting to insults, thinking ill of each other, and so forth. Because someone sees it differently doesnât mean they are FOS, an idiot, etc. (Except for some people. ;-))
Letâs just say we disagree. You see black and white, I see gray.
Do you realize there are costs to letting AMC walk and us mothballing the project until we negotiate another 12 months with some other suitor? Do you have the money to pay that? Are you aware of the dilution that will occur if that happens?
I donât see it the way you do. You say my argument is weak. I say you donât understand the business environment weâre in or the realities of the situation. In the end neither of our views matter much because weâre not the ones making the decision.
I must say I find a far amount of todayâs posts to be mostly just speculative nonsense based on little more than an a posterâs imaginationâŚand no wonder as is normally the caseâŚthere is a factual information vacuum at the moment with our investment.
Auryn is coming out with a series of news releases starting todayish that should at least start to narrow/tighten the speculation boundaries.
I hope nobody has high expectations of the forthcoming news. First, I think it will take some time to âproperlyâ prepare. Although it âcouldâ give up some clarity of the big picture, I doubt we will see the share price move above .02. Of course, I hope I am wrongâŚ
Maybe someone close to Medinahholder can reach out to that Major he mentioned and show them the cards on Auryns site and PRâs. I think that will put a fire under Auryn side to step up and take control
I donât think this is on the table. A non-cash tender offer for shares in a private or newly listed public company would be a very tough exit (for us) unless the option was exercised beforehand (as has been speculated with the $100M being used for working capital). I donât see how the shares in the NewCo could be valued (fairly) at a high enough premium to allow an acquisition of MDMN where Auryn was able to maintain over 50%.
The rest of your points seem reasonable. The biggest wild card to me is if the Letts are still incentivized to buy shares of MDMN in the open market even though the mule isnât parting with his shares. Aurynâs available options in moving forward increase significantly if/when they have controlling interest in MDMN. This decision will have a significant impact on speed of our exit.
Good points! I think we also need to keep in mind that we have a very unique situation here from a legal point of view when we have an affiliate of the âoptioneeâ in an âofferor/optioneeâ relationship (Sr. Letts) sitting on the BOD of the âofferorâ (Medinah). I havenât seen this very often in the mining sector.
As a âfiduciaryâ owing certain duties of care, candor, UNDIVIDED LOYALTY, etc. to the Medinah shareholders, Sr. Letts has volunteered to act in the best interest of the Medinah shareholders specifically. He is not allowed to obtain personal benefits at the expense of the Medinah shareholders. The law holds fiduciary duties very seriously and the legal repercussions for any breaches are infinitely stronger than any associated with being mistreated by a mere âoptioneeâ.
When you juxtapose this fiduciary relationship with Medinahâs waving of a noncircumvention agreement forbidding AMC from annexing any nearby properties you might sense that a level of trust is involved here suggesting that the relationship is a little deeper than one might have presupposed.
The recent âChile Explore Reportâ article suggests that Masglow/AMC has a voracious appetite for mining projects in the Chilean Coastal Range. The AMC website clearly represents that âtheirâ ADL project is the crown jewel. It appears that they paid about $4 million for the 9 FQM/Inmet assets which averages out to be about $444,000 each. The $100 million minimum price tag for Medinahâs 4,500 hectare ADL project plus a 15% equity stake in AMC tells us what they think of Medinahâs assets. I would think that the early production opportunities at our mountain will play a significant role in the growth of all of Masglas Americas Corporation. Iâve witnessed this âcatalyticâ role of early production opportunities in the building of significant mining entities. For First Quantum Minerals it was their Bwana Mkuba tailings project in Zambia that served as the catalyst.
