"Who then spent $26M on new wells when they didn't have to, as part of the sale agreement - the existing directors (were we ever really given a true explanation for doing so - No)"
You are either lying and trying to deceive everyone by not acknowledging and engaging with the reasons provided by the company, or you have simply not read the statements provided by the company. I am going to assume the latter.
The board explained why the continued to spend money on the asset, despite the offer for the sale of their assets in a recent letter to shareholders:
Lone Star say: We saw Mr. Cruickshank paradoxically attempting both to sell the majority of the Company’s assets and simultaneously issue value-diluting convertible debt.
ANTARES RESPONSE
The Board received an unsolicited conditional offer for the sale of the Company’s Permian Projects with no guarantee of proceeding and whilst this process was unfolding continued the business of raising funds to further develop Antares’ assets. Should we have stopped all development for 6 months whilst waiting to see the outcome of the sales process? Is this the kind of “expertise” Lone Star would bring?
The funding process undertaken saw convertible notes issued at a significant premium to the market price of Antares Shares and allowed us to continue field development of both Southern and Northern Star projects without diluting shareholders.
AZZ Price at posting:
53.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
