There'd need to be an approximate 25% (at minimum) bid above the...

There'd need to be an approximate 25% (at minimum) bid above the current value of FFX based on the ratio calculated from Leo (0.178).

So at 89c Leo, the value of the FFX holding is equivalent to approximately 16 cents (89c * 0.178), which means for a corporate transaction to be done on FFX, there'd need to be a bid coming in from a Treadstone initiated offerer of around 21c per share minimum, though 25c at the current price point would have more people considering the offer.

Whichever way you cut it, there needs to be a premium.

There would also be a couple of cents added from the current FFX cash balance if that is also distributed, so let's say a current bid of 28 cents per share when all things are taken into account, though 30 cents would probably get it over the line at the current Leo price and ratio.

Anyway, we are "supposedly" going to hear something by 30 June.

Not sure if Treadstone is on a fixed rate or monthly fee, if it's monthly then they may not be in any hurry to offer something up from a potential acquirer, and would probably hope for an extension.

Scott presented well at the AGM, the rest were either church-mouse quiet or mediocre. There wasn't many laughs. The most cynical grins and shaking-of-heads was reserved for the news  that the new Firefinch office is going to be in space owned/leased by Fraser and his consultancy, for which shareholders will undoubtedly have to pay him a monthly fee, not just for rent, but probably for secretarial services as well. They just can't help it can they?

I continue to believe that the best option is the one of "least risk". This involves an immediate return of the cash balance now to shareholders, followed by a "guaranteed" return of Leo (LLL) shares in twelve months. Given the problematic history of this company over 14 years and 5 boards, it's now all about mitigating risk. So any sensible person will opt to choose the path of least risk.

Gw