To the note issue. As i recall it...A claytons floor price. 1.5c wasn't it ? A floor you have, when you really dont have a floor, if alternatively, a default term for was the vwap sp trading below the floor x days, dont recall, allows triggers on collateral shares?. Kaboom. ! Breach =>1c and below, then the solution a 1-1 0.4c CR to discard the note. The note was toxic. And whoever decided the collateral shares / default terms without consideration of the expectation of market dynamics was ill conceived. Is that how it went ?
I wont point fingers, because ultimately i dont know who individually was putting the dynamite on the bridge in place, and who was just say a dopey train driver asleep at the wheel. Its just, the means of destruction were there. A note is a toxic sell discount on market to recover funds = spiral downwards. So why wouldnt you expect the sp to firstly get sold down to the floor price in steps, and then a weak market dip below the floor ?
The old options were a chance before the left foot tripped over the right foot, time and time again. The expectations that option buyers may have had, from the Arbitration, to equipment sales, to off take funding arrangements, were misplaced. They should be re-issued, a replacement 1-1 in same with the current newer issue at 1c strike. Its just BS all in all, the treatment of holders, and burning the registry in the way it happened, when the company previously spoke of keeping a tight register. If it had done that, prudently, it would never have entered the note terms for one, it could have dont a CR like the previous one it did at 2c.
They have a lot of redeeming to do. One, get this funding for NS, and two redeem option holders with replacement options, the same terms as the ones given generously to all those in the 0.4c belly flop.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)