ifca deal

Abobo, Thanks for your take on what you would do as CEO. Overcoming the lack of transparency would certainly be a plus, but on most other points I would have to disagree. Time will tell which of us is closer to the mark.

Lumping Mizuho, Stark and IFCA together is not a fair judgment. Mizuho is a real bank. It has a street corner presence throughout Japan like any of our big 4 or 5 and lends money to businesses on commercial terms. Sure the terms were tough and that was a fault of Chemeq management, but I am sure Mizuho, unlike Stark, would have played fairly.

It was Mizuho, not Chemeq, which brought Stark into the picture if my recollection is correct. Stark is a rapacious free-loader, rarely takes up shares in an invested company and pounces on targets at their weakest moments. The fact that it did not want to give IFCA the opportunity to commence due diligence shows it was not interested in having its bonds paid out.

The IFCA deal as it currently stands is to take up a shareholding. That is a world away from a bondholding. The fortunes of IFCA will depend on the share price and other shareholders go along for the ride.

The longer we go without any indication IFCA has withdrawn the more likely they remain interested. If it gets its funds in the right format the bondholders will have no option but to accept redemption.