Yea, but then you have to pay more to buy the shares you had originally. It would be immensely better to not have to exercise to purchase shares.
Hblot was likely someone that worked for ANV... looks like the deleting of company hard drives has begun.... time for a special investigator.
This article seems to be responsible for driving up the price and getting institutions to notice the stock is way undervalued. Kudos to this guy.
From Seeking Alpha
Coca-Cola announced its intention on April 17th to acquire CuliangWang, a plant based drink maker in China for an Enterprise Value of $400.5 million.
This puts SkyPeople Fruit Juice in play as part of a grand thesis that Coca-Cola's focus is on healthy branded Chinese drink makers.
Coca-Cola attempted to acquire HuiYuan, the largest branded fruit juice maker in China, 6 years ago.
Sorry Jeff, I completely 100% disagree.. Buyback and div are the worst ideas.... they need to pile all available cash flow into their 2 capex projects to drive shareholder value. You are asking for a terrible quick fix. This is a micro cap company not an AAPL or MSFT that can willingly just offer some free cash flow.
Companies that pay a div in this small of a market... I'd be highly skeptical of, b/c it likely means they don't have any other better use of the funds.... yikes.
You are clueless. Don't post again. Shares will be transferred into new equity. You are implying that cancelling means that everyone loses all of their shares. You are essentially yelling fire in a crowded theater.
As per the bankruptcy court procedures, this needs to be blocked by the US Trustee and the EC.... there could be significant reserves in those properties. Nevada is a historic state with high reserves. Management needs to go as they are not only incompetent but extremely crooked with the fraudulent behavior of the Dec 9th equity offering and their positive 8k that was released on Jan 21 when they knew back in November of 2014 of the liquidity crunch that was to occur despite not notifying shareholders.
Selling those properties for essentially pennies on the dollar would be scandalous.
That's the point... the buyout in 1200 to 1300 gold is very unlikely.... there aren't really any players that can perform an M&A deal, besides if they pay cash you are screwed out of the future upside of ANV alone.
The point is that the debtholders will receive a certain percentage of shares in return they will negate interest payments. That means ANV goes from earning 80 million EBITDA to probably 50 million EBIT and then 30-35 million in Net income or $0.23 a share.
And that's in the current gold market.... if gold averages above $1300, that bottom line earnings will improve significantly without the burden of interest payments.
kabanch... like everything there are tradeoffs. If it takes longer, it gives gold a chance to recover and for ANV to recover more equity value... the higher the price of gold the higher the percentage of shares we recover as shareholders b/c Enterprise Value shoots higher as a result of higher gold prices.
Also, it gives firms that may want to buy ANV out time to judge and evaluate the company.
As much as hblot is negative, he is right that the "Whole" process could take years. But we have to remember that WAMU was a financial firm and has very esoteric assets to value. ANV is a mine with a physical commodity in the ground with very real and physical assets. I would say 3.5 years would be an upper value and a likely mean value would be 14 months... so sometime around June 2016.
Fallingdebri, do you know or have you ever heard of some "white, chalky" substance that delayed mining in the last quarter around November to January time frame ?
Just fill it out, if you can't make it, they will find replacements.... we just need a high volume as the cutoff date is ridiculously short. Hopefully every one just ends up faxing it.
This could be true b/c I sent my detailed letter to Ms. Patton on Thursday afternoon around 4 PM so she probably wouldn't have read it until Friday morning, and if she read it before dennis called in, it could have helped sway their opinion..... that letter took me more than 4 hours to write and it was pretty detailed on some of the mishaps ANV did starting in November to the silly equity offering on Dec 9 to the silly positive 8k released on Jan 21 that was released well after they knew of their liquidity issues on the swap.
that may be the definition but then there would be no majority shareholder in about 99% of cases. Owning 50% of the shares means you own the company.
Yea, thanks. After reading that link jrwlkn posted it is looking way more positive for an EC to be set up. There are tons of cases in that link that are cited that had worse situations than ours and yet shareholders ended up with a much fairer deal than before the C11 arrangement.
There are tons of cases that I have now found from that link posted by jrkl that prove an EC should be set up in our case.
First, when there are lots of shareholders, there is a higher probability. This is true in our case as there aren't really a lot of major shareholders. Most of the shares are owned by the private individual. I imagine just like our case, enterprise value was mostly made up of debt and yet the shareholders got a 'gift' which means a favorable outcome in the court case.
Ampex, 2008 WL 2051128, at *2. In Ampex, the debtors were publicly
traded, with an enterprise value of approximately $80 million. The
debtors' plan proposed a prearranged agreement between the debtors,
their secured noteholders and the proposed owner of the reorganized
entity in which the debtors would exchange their current
debt for cash, new notes and/or equity. Unsecured creditors were to
recover less than 10% of their claims in new common stock of the
Good find jrwlkn, it says in the document that the size of shareholder actually doesn't matter. It's more likely that an EC will be set up with more disparate ownership rather than a Van Eck contacting them. This means we have a better chance at an EC since most shares of ANV are widely spread out among 1000s and 1000s of people.
Actually it doesn't say EC's are rare. It says the exact opposite. Page 13 it says ECs are becoming increasingly frequent due to the nature that more shareholders are involved in big cases... There are 127 million shares outstanding with very little concentration of shares, which means there are a ton of shareholders.
This article actually is an argument for our case.