There has been a lot of misinformation about this. Who in their right mind would suggest that these large financial institutuins would buy shares with the idea of flipping them or acting as underwriters for the general public? On the contrary, they bought the shares as a long term hold - which places them in a strong position for further developments. They are not concerned about short term weakness in the shares traded in the general market.
If you want to find out more about this call the company but don't burden the thread with misinformed speculation
Sewells - I now realise the nature of the underwriting. Overall i was wrong. Some shares were sold on at a discount some were absorbed by the underwriters but Rubicon got it's money per the NR of Feb 29
So what? Adamson and other Rubicon executives could have been exceptions. It is not likely the underwriters were going to refuse them. Not to mention those shares that they bought amounted to a drop in the bucket when we consider the total amount of shares purchased from Rubicon.
You can read, read and read and you will not see where they had to sell the shares. A bought deal simply means they bought the shares from Rubicon. You do like you always do. Keep pounding away on something and never really say anything.
To me it doesn't make sense that they took what in effect was an immediate loss when by holding at a book loss they wouldn't do so - unless they believe Rubicon has no future. I need to be told what actually happened
This I know: Adamson et al participated in the underwriting at $4.10
I don't see why the underwriters couldn't keep the shares for themselves. The shares were issued therefore thare had to be a prospectus whether they sold them or not
When people talk about shorting the shares - so they mean that they shorted 49 million shares?? Surely not
doig - you should read the news release here:
It specifically says that it was a bought deal. It specifically says "The Shares will be offered by way of a short form prospectus to be filed in all of the provinces of Canada (other than the Province of Québec) pursuant to National Instrument 44-101 Short Form Prospectus Distributions and in the United States on a private placement basis pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. "
Who would these underwriters be offering shares to if they weren't going to sell them to other people in Canada and in the US? Would they be offering these shares to themselves? Back to Rubicon?
So, what shares were unregistered? The prospectus was accepted by the regulators prior to the close. The shares don't change hands until the close and the prospectus had been approved before that time. They sign up the buyers; i.e., get commitments, during the time prior to the close but the transaction itself doesn't happen until the close. That's why they call that the closing date of the transaction.