What you need to do is stop speakin' before thinkin'. There are people reading these posting beyond our little board of friends. Keep your postings civil and responsible and you will be taken seriously. I know this because I have been called out on the carpet in the past.
Has anyone noticed that the Street has not published a bash on CLF for a while? Could have noticed the SEC reaching out and touching some of their supporters or maybe there are no more checks in the mail.
You are correct, the tender deadline for the $550 offer is the 13th and all parties are locked in and cannot back out without approval of the other party. I have provided the lock out definition for people to review.
"Stock-sale or asset-sale offer by a takeover-target firm to a friendly acquirer (the white knight) to frustrate a hostile acquirer (the black knight). This offer for the sale of the major assets (the crown jewels) or controlling shares is attractively priced but freezes (locks-up) the assets or shares so that they cannot be resold without the target firm's approval. Since this strategy may hinder fair bidding, courts often disallow it except in cases where it encourages greater competition among bidders. It is not considered a derivative instrument since its primary underlying is the occurrence of a business combination and is therefore not subject to Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) statement 133. also called lock up agreement, lock up clause, lock up defense, lock up provision."
Since they have reached their total offer, the company can increase the tender offer to accept other holders that would agree to sell their bonds at $500. But the company is not locked into these additional bonds unless they agree to do so with the SEC.
Thank you, the way nick sees it is that somebody filing bankruptcy or their creditors are in control, not what I have experienced when dealing with persons filing bankruptcy. The court is in total control and takes the advice of the trustees when handing down their decisions.
Many of these old posters have changed their screen names, I have quit using my assets to find the details of these people. And some of these people have been contacted by the SEC to stop their line of postings or face action. Posters here need to realize they are not anonymous and their postings are in a public forum that can be used against them.
Notice the absence of many of the bashers here, maybe they have got notice they are off the payroll now.
All the paid bashers on this board may want to see if their checks clear the bank… you are losing your key supporters in the media. How much I would love to see the SEC go after Cramer and both of his media outlets, The Street and CNBC.
Under your stated case, CLF will have $78 million in income to report for Q3.
They were not trying to retire all the bonds, only $100 million of them and they have now bumped that up to $123 million… that is good news. You need to take a little more time to think out the situation.
Met coal is worth more than thermal coal, especially overseas. I just don't know what the reserves are left in the two met coal mines. What I am going off is the impaired value they had of $275 million before they discontinued operations.
They will have money coming in from the coal mine sales that should give them at least $100 million to spend. Plus they should still have $100 million left from the tax return.
I am surprised they got so many bonds at the early tender. Really good news and CLF can move forward.
This is the trouble with having your main supply chain coming through one port, China would be wise to expand other ports to diversify.
From Reuters June 2, 2011:
"The St. James Parish facility is expected to group the DRI units in two plants with the capacity to produce 5.5 million tons (4.99 million tonnes) of sponge iron a year and require an investment of $3 billion, Nucor said in March."
As I said before, the remaining two mines must have been sold as a package deal when Coronado purchased the first mine in January 2015 and doesn't surprise me that some news about it was released then and that LG stated the same thing now with one addition, that there could be other parties interested in the assets.