in the thread I started about voting no, I wrote the security etc is confusing the issue and these last few posts have done it again.
Can I suggest ignoring the security issue and the insolvency trigger point for the security as it can get confusing and I believe the security issue is fine- that is just my opinion.
However, I just want to come back on track with your the point I was trying to clarify with you before we all have locked in our votes - just to make sure we are on the same page.
you wrote : Got it, FG. Yes the point of SIMEC refusing further funding that you notice happens if, and only if, HAV has become insolvent - i.e. receivers appointed. At that point their BODs is dead. (Also a little point, SIMEC is not loaning the money - but giving it. That's committed.)
but this is completely wrong and I just want you to review your info then vote however you feel.
SIMEC/GTG can decide to no longer fund the $49.5M tranches at almost any stage, the most likely trigger for this decision is HAV/the milestones not meeting the success criteria within a tranche. This is why we are saying is is not committed and is still conditional until the success criteria are met. Walter believes that because the tranches and milestones are being done in parallel - that there is little chance of this happening BUT he admits both in the call and in the email I posted above that this is a possibility.
The insolvency thing is completely NON RELATED to the commitment or otherwise of the first $49.5M except if an insolvency event is triggered then they would definitely stop the next tranche of funding and try to engage an administrator to sell the securities. This is a separate issue.
Not trying to be a smarta@@ but wanted to ensure you were on the same page- the decision is then yours.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
