flush out final offer from hanlong

Wow, just now Andres told Keries (who did the smart thing in voting NO) that he is "cutting his nose to spite his face". The logic is perverse to say the least.

This clearly shows the glaring inconsistencies and contradiction of the YES camp. Either they are 100% certain all the hedge funds will fall behind the yes vote (in which case your NO vote or abstention will NOT cost you anything other than a few days delay in the getting the cheque) or they haven't got the slightest clue how the hedge funds will deal with HanLong understandably so given the manner and circumstances of the 57 cents to 45 cents shareholder value destruction on the basis of nothing more than IO inventory destocking. Should a sufficient blocking stake be exercised, HanLong (more appropriately the MANY STATE ENTERPRISES TAKING OVER AS URGED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT) will have NO CHOICE but increase the bid to match the hedge funds demands or call the bid FINAL (with or without upping the bid).

Some will vote yes (or express their decision to do so) because that have been conditioned, frightened and misinformed for many months of the false implications of a NO vote. Others have (you may suspect) advocated the yes vote in order to CAP the bid price at 45 cents for Merill / Han Long so that HanLong is freed from issuing a FINAL offer (which in itself may UNLEASH other counter-bids).

First and foremost nobody knows exactly who some of the hedge funds represent (despite endless postings of "I am so happy 95% of holders will vote yes" - makes you wonder).

Whether they are warehousing share for potential counter-bidders or whether they have been collaborating behind the scenes with the Sundance board (playing the superfically compliant role to play along with HanLong) for an 11th hour move on HanLong (as clearly China CANNOT back out and CAN'T RISK losing their ONLY means of acquiring the West African IO province).

By Voting NO or ABSTAINING, you deny HanLong the crucial yes note and leverage as well as crucially FLUSHING out a FINAL vote from the PRC (which could be a CATALYST for other counter-bids to emerge).

There is NO SUCH THING as "playing chicken" or "cutting your nose to spite your face" if it means at worst you get the same deal and at best you get a whole lot more (really money rightfully belonging to you as promised by China in the original SIA that they subsequently reneged on).

In the past, whenever I made this very point there had been no sensible counter-argument. The only responses have ALWAYS been the same (no need for final cause it's SOA, 100% done deal in the absence).

Unless of course they perhaps know the hedge funds may have a nasty surprise for the PRC where they try to solicit every yes vote to undermine SDL shareholders in terms of the final payout.