Ann: TOV: Poseidon Nickel Limited - Panel Receives Application, page-45

"Where is the SH approvals sort for any of this or was that telegraphed in the prospectus?"

It wasn't required. And you know I would be one of the first to bang on about it if it was and they didn't obtain it first. If you would like me to repeat the rationale, just ask. Be warned, it will bore you to tears.  

Try thinking about the 5c v. 6c issue in these terms:

POS puts the feelers out and starts making presentations to industry finance types wrt to a developing a holistic funding package. Around the time that things start to firm up on the financing front (i.e. when the SP is trading up to 4.4c then softens to 3.9c), BMM gets word of the plans and decides it wants a decent slice of the action. They swoop in and pick up JB's FPOs @ 6c ("woo-hoo!", thinks JB) and also secures the CN for an undisclosed sum. BMM then makes an informal T/O a bid @ 6c that was conditional on 100% full ownership, which I will speculate that they most likely knew this would never fly. But it was just high enough to give them a foot in the door to the eventual funding deal. Meanwhile POS is trying to put together a holistic funding package with this new noise to contend with. Back-office discussions take place in which the asking price is discussed for a solution that will actually work, rather than a highly opportunistic T/O offer price that was never made formal (that's important) and would never be successful in its present form (i.e. 100% takeover). And so the 5c price was agreed. It's more than the immediately preceding 3.9c/4c on-market traded price, but it's less than the informal conditional 6c offer that was destined to fail.

- There will be people who bitch about being asked to pay more than 4c, which would have further compounded the dilution problem for those who did not participate.

- There will also be people who bitch about not being asked to pay more than 6c because... Hmmm...I can't explain that one. You want the mic, T?

- 5c is a decent enough compromise, imo, for a funding solution that will actually work.

Attempting to make this all about AF tends to lose sight of the fact that the RI was open to all shareholders to participate in. If everyone participated, then that dreaded rascal would be limited to his existing 18%. It was even a renounceable offer. Existing Entitlement holders could even apply for additional shares. The Shortfall Shares would even be offered to the open market towards the end of the process. And then finally, after all the acceptances, rejections, and abstinences are taken into account, the unallocated Shortfall Shares get pushed to the sub-underwriter to ensure that the whole raising is not a complete failure. And this sub-underwriter, by the way, is a subbie whom we can be assured is a bona fide LT holder who will not attempt to undermine the secondary trading market by covertly laundering them on-market later on (<-- that's an important but possibly overlooked point).

Yeah, AF is definitely the problem for sure. 

Are you sure you are a holder, T? Honest?