they said iron ore price counts for nothing, page-3

Westcott, IMO if the directors don't demand a revision to the 45 cents bastardized bid (figuratively an outrageous attempt to loot during a deliberately lit fire), they would in teh eyes of shareholders, market commentators and the mining industry to be blatantly and brazenly failing in carrying out the most basic fudiciary duty in protecting shareholder interest.

This recommendation "if maintained" would also raise serious conerns and suspicions in terms of integrity (given we have been held in a China-only head lock by the board's choosing).

However, I am more inclined to think that the board has chosen this long and winding path in a clever set of maneouvers to obtain the necessary mining permits in order to deal with HanLong from a position of strength when the time is ripe.

Therefore in the absence of a rejection of the 45 cents bid, I am hopeful a solid counter-bid (s) is forthcoming.

Hence, those who haven't voted should vote NO as this would enhance the hedge funds bargaining position if they revolt (which they should) and holders would still get "exactly" the same payout if the hedgies bend over.

A NO vote will also be neutralized by a counter-bid (so no risk there also).

The argument that a blocking stake being successsfully mobilized by retailers (as opposed to one by hedge funds) somehow leads to a no-deal is a desperate attempt to muddy the picture in order to canvass more votes into the Merrill basket.

A blocking stake is a blocking stake. HanLong has to respond to any blocking stake (with either a revised and/or a final offer declaration).