Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Doesn't take much volume to move the pps, in either direction. Those prints at .018 & .019 today were greeted with a fairly prompt smackdown at .015. CSTI keeps showing all sorts of varying size at .014, but the next MM (NITE) is at .022
>>It's two separate processes for Burnstone and Hollister
And Burnstone is not going to go the auction route - the BRP admin will whittle through the 6 at the table and come out on the back end with the best possible deal - but that deal will more or less be final.
Hollister will be an auction - so they will work through the best of the 3 offers on the table and then that best offer will form the starting point at auction - an auction that will be open to more than just the three who have submitted a stalking horse offer.
I don't see GBG holding back on the sale of Hollister - the original plan was for a SISP - but they backed away from that in early January. From the 6th Report:
9.4 The following are the key dates associated with the revised Hollister sales process:
a) No later than January 25, 2013 – draft purchase agreement and bidding
procedures to be made available in GBGL’s data room;
b) No later than February 15, 2013 – receipt of firm offers from stalking horse
bidders, including markups of a purchase agreement and bid/auction procedures;
c) No later than March 7, 2013 – court approval of the purchase agreement and
bid/auction procedures;
d) No later than April 12, 2013 – receive final bids;
e) No later than April 15, 2013 – auction held;
f) No later than April 19, 2013 – court approval of final offer and sale; and
g) Closing of the sale of the Hollister assets shall occur not more than thirty days
after the issuance of the court order.
>>What I'm not clear about is the difference between the 3 "Stalking Horse" bids already in and the multiple Burnstone bidders due by 3/29.
It's two separate processes for Burnstone and Hollister
To have three bids for stalking horse is pretty solid - and it doesn't mean that there would only be three bidders at auction. The consensus in the world of bankruptcy is that auctions go better if there is a solid foundation upon which competing bids can be started, the auction itself is more efficient and yields better outcomes for the estate. So, where possible, a 'best starting offer' is chosen. There are a lot of potential bidders who purposely do not want to be a stalking horse - because you tip your hand a bit - they'd prefer to just show up an auction and overbid. Typically the SH will be a smaller player - the inducement to serve as SH is a 'breakup fee' - if you are the SH and you don't win at auction - you get a fee for providing the estate with a starting bid - it's usually a few % points of your offer - so if you offer 100 mm, you would get 3 mm if another party outbids you at the end of the day. In many bk cases, noone steps forward to serve as SH, and in those cases I've watched that do, I can't remember many that had 3 offers.
From 7th Monitor Report - I like it.
9.2 The Monitor’s Sixth Report set out the key milestone dates in the revised Hollister sales
process. Most notably, February 15, 2013 was the date set for the receipt of firm stalking
horse bids, which were to include mark ups of the purchase documents and the
corresponding bid procedures.
9.3 Three prospective purchasers submitted stalking-horse bids by the February 15, 2013
deadline. In this regard, the Company and its advisors, in consultation with the Lenders
are discussing the offers and next steps.
9.4 With regard to the Burnstone property, the Monitor has been in regular contact with the
BRP regarding the Burnstone sales process. The Monitor has been advised by the BRP
that multiple parties are engaged in the sales process at Burnstone and are continuing
with due diligence towards the bid deadline of March 29, 2013.
Detail on sale process related to Hollister is in the 6th Monitor report. 7th just came out btw.
I don't know the meaning of the word intrusive dano. I'm here for the same reason - let's all throw some darts and sort it all out if we can.
No such luck with the 'bar'.....but I did have an bk atty tell me last week I was ahead of 90% of his colleagues. I won't name the case :) I think he meant it though....I'm going with it at any rate. I will say it wasn't this case. So there is a heirarchy in bk. Equity is at the bottom....creditors are at the top - but creditors are not the monolith that equity is - creditors usually fall into multiple classes. Let's divide them basically into secured and unsecured. Secured and unsecured are usually enemies....and as the Chinese so often say...the enemy of your enemy is your friend...in the docs for this case that I've read, I think the unsecured creditors all want to see a robust auction process...robust auction is all we can ask for.
It wouldn't be the first time. What is the implication you are referring to?
Most things in bk/ccaa/brp get extended - I think more time is on our side..short marketing runways only work for the benefit of creditors.
>>i think the bidding will go the same way as my last cattle sale. all the buyers got together at breakfast (hosted by the auctioneer) and decided the prices each was willing to pay in each weight class before the auction started. since there weren't any local butchers or small buyers there to compete against them the auctioneer just started the bids low to make everyone think it wasn't fixed.
Ditchman999-that is exactly what one has to be vigilant for in bk. I don't think I've ever seen it explained so clearly.
>>You better hope its not a Blackrock.
I hope it is those hapless F's. Without question, someone other than Van Eck was unloading end of last week. There are more reasons to sell than to buy....especially when dealing with other people's money. I made my weekend gut-check and I'm still good with my position here.
I would not expect numbers on either property prior to late April - early May - that's on the most expeditious timeline...that's a positive - a quick timeline in bk does not serve the interests of equity.
>>i like your chinese angle. i just don't think it is in the cards. imo the devaluation of hollister was done too fast. this mine is the wildcard. whomever wins the bid will slough off burnstone and retain hollister.
They will be sold separately...that is already in the cards....but slough off the 20 million ounce deposit?....with the 5,000 tpd mill on site....I don't think so. How many 20 million ounce deposits are identified in the world right now? If your answer is more than twenty - it's wrong.
Can't wait to see how this week goes. There is one nice little chunk of Li-On IP left on the market. One decent piece of recently court tested grade A prime. And it's right here. And noone is watching. What are the chances the Chinese will try to snag all the court validated IP and own the industry going forward...in our own courts with the receipts to prove it...
I was asked via private message to define a couple of abbreviations....I don't have premium membership, so I'm replying here....JCI is Johnson Controls Inc. IB is Investment Banker, in this case KPMG consulting and Roth Capital. NOL is net operating loss carry forwards, which make future earnings tax free. NOLs can't be sold outright, but under certain circumstances, especially in BK, they can pass with the business to a purchaser.
I was wondering when this was going to start to pop a little bit. As I posted last week, the case appears to have taken a major turn with the retention of KPMG and Roth Capital to independently canvass for an equity raise. Again, the most interesting part of the motion is that any money coming from interested party Johnson Controls would only be compensated at 1.25% - that's ridiculously low - and would indicate that the IBs wouldn't be the primary driver bringing them to the table. The motion goes on to note that if the debtor structures a sale of the entire company while the IBs are in the process of trying to raise equity financing, both KPMG and Roth get a flat 500k.
You gotta overlay this change with what was originally supposed to happen here and what happened in the A123 case. Last September or so, Valence was saying they intended to exit by the end of '12, and they hadn't hired any IBs to search for money - which made it pretty clear that Berg would fund it. Berg has recently closed Mission West for 1.3 billion, so he isn't short for cash to do this himself. But this is where I find it most interesting - Valance didn't propose any plan in October to emerge by end of December - in fact nothing much at all happened in the case. But what was happening with A123? JCI was stalking horse for the automotive business of A123 and the SH bid was 120 million. It went to auction and JCI took their bid all the way up to 245 million- they more than doubled it, but Wanxiang took it for 250 million. In December, the A123 UCC motioned the court to put JCI's deposit that was required to bid in escrow pending forfeiture because on information and belief, JCI had sent lobbyists all over DC to try and get the auction blocked after the fact. Never seen that happen - JCI really didn't want the IP going to the Chinese. The auction results remained pending while the FCIUS debated allowing the IP to go to a Chinese bidder, and on 1/29/13 they rendered a decision allowing the sale to close. All the while, the Valence case just sits in a holding pattern. But in less than two weeks after the FCIUS decision, we see this motion that is a major turn in the case, and we know that Johnson Controls was all in a huff about it, and LiOn sector analysts have been saying for some time that JCI is incredibly weak in this space and would probably eventually have to buy out Valence or A123. All speculation on my part, but it seems to me that perhaps Berg was approached by JCI, who expressed dire interest in the event they couldn't overturn the A123 auction. It would make sense given Valence's NOLs for JCI to take a run, if that is their intent, while it is in BK as IRS code section 382 makes NOLs much easier to preserve under a sale while in Chapter 11. Those NOLs would be very valuable to a company that actually makes money. Berg's a smart man - you hire KPMG and Roth to apply a little extra pressure - esp. given that JCI more than doubled their bid last time pressure was applied. And just this week it came out that the Chinese are gunning for Fisker too - the space isn't dead. Hopefully the docket will provide us with further clues in the coming weeks, but I do think VLNCQ shareholders have a second chance here - still a long shot, but compared to what I thought the chances were a month ago, they are greatly improved.
>>That only makes up 0.0085% of the total assets, so why would they be inclined to sell GBGLF at a loss?
From the website - Index Description: MVGDXJTR is a rules-based, modified market capitalization-weighted, float-adjusted index intended to provide investors exposure to small- and medium-capitalization companies in the gold and/or silver mining industry.
GBG has moved well outside of those parameters.
I'd say both mines should be sold by May/June time frame - which would mean checks in the mail by end of '13 if they clear the claims hurdle....and big goose egg if they don't.
I just went back and spent the extra 5 minutes to pull some historical snapshots of Van Ecks holdings. Using the annual and semiannual reports on their website, plus an SEC filing in November of '12, here are the numbers
12/31/11
GDX 21,484,506
GDXJ 23,104,352
6/30/12
GDX 25,277,991
GDXJ 36,647,321
10/31/12
GDX 25,409,028
GDXJ 42,837,927
I still say they can't really keep GBG in there just for charter compliance - but that's my opinion only. What's intriguing to me is that GDXJ chased this pretty hard all during '12 - that speaks to Van Eck seeing these assets as being extremely undervalued at much much higher prices. Sucks to be them and have to sell them now.
You can get the daily Van Eck holdings from their webpage - it's a tiny button on the right side of the page - says something like 'see all holdings'. Van Eck is going to sell because people that buy GDX or GDXJ aren't buying GDXBJ - which would be the Bankrupt Junior index - which unfortunately doesn't exist. It's really surprising given how truly crappy the gold shares market has been for the last 18 months that so strikingly few companies have filed. I'd love to see 2013 be the year that changes. What strikes me about GDX/GDXJ is how remarkably slow they are liquidating the position. It does sorta look like they were chasing alpha, which is surprising for an index ETF late last year when they picked up most of their shares of GBG - from what I saw they picked up close to 2/3rds after the terminal tailspin was well underway (but I've never spent more than a few minutes trying to verify that was what happened)
At the end of the day, it's usually real simple in bk - there is the claims hurdle (including the amdin fees of the bk process itself) and there is the value of what's inside the company. If the value is determined to be higher than the claims hurdle, equity is in the game, if it isn't they are not. The nice thing about a liquidation is that what's inside the company is mostly converted to cash, and cash is pretty easy to compare to the hurdle. The problem with a reorg is that an appraiser has to put a value on business operations. Appraisal is more art than science and the various constituencies in the case have differing motives when it comes to a low or high value being determined. If those with a vested interest in a lowball number have more clout in the case, those with a vested interested in a high number are going to screwed. In most cases, the assets really aren't worth more than the claims and equity gets zero. Where they are worth more, sometimes equity gets something and sometimes they don't - you really really have to identify the various constituencies and their motives to play fair.
>>but in the US when a company files BK, can't they just completely screw the shareholders, i.e. Six Flags?
They can't just randomnly screw you - there are rules about how they do it. I think those Canadians aren't above giving Joe Sixpack a hearty pounding he won't soon forget either. All to say, every case is different. There is a lot of leeway in a reorganization to lowball the value of the assets and hand 100% to creditors - that's not possible in a liquidation (in a liquidation, you'd steal it by chilling the bidding process so that a hand picked suitor picks it up). I would not be here if this was a reorganization and it would have nothing to do with Canada vs US. US bankruptcy can be very lucrative and shareholders come out handsomely more than most suspect - go look at chart during bankruptcy for CDC Software (7 cents to over 5 bucks in 6 months) or Vermillion (3 cents to 28 bucks in 3 months) to name two. On the flip side, I've seen a lot of cases where the value was there and it was snatched away - legal but via questionable ethics.
I look at it this way - when you buy a solid company, there a slew of bad things that can happen, most especially bk. When you buy companies that have already filed, most of the worst is behind them. :)
Trying to ramp two mines at the same time was nothing short of hubris, especially in a tough funding environment. I guess in mgmt's defense, money wasn't tight when those plans were made, but there was still zero room for production obstacles.....and I've never seen any mine not run into 10x the problems one could expect. So without doubt, they found themselves in a cash flow insolvency situation. That's the ideal bk candidate from a vultures point of view. I think the assets are great.....with we were looking at better macro conditions in the gold markets right now, but really any serious buyer is no doubt going to be looking at the longer term strategic picture. I was reading an interview with Nolan Watson from Sandstorm the other day. He was talking about how the relative small size of Sandstorm makes them very agile compared to the larger streaming companies that need to do much larger deals to move their needle - and he threw out 750 mm as a comp. Burnstone would potentially be a great property to acquire via a streaming deal. Whether the location in S.A. would make that a non-starter for a streamer, I really don't know - it's entirely possible. I still go back to Barrick's Pascua Lama project when trying to assess the value at Burnstone. Pascua Lama is about a 20 mm ounce resource - it's a little bigger plus it has silver credits, but Barrick has spent close to 3 billion and 20 years....and they aren't even close to production...and the logistics of a project at that altitude and remoteness are daunting. Next to Pascua Lama, Burnstone looks like a relative bargain at a billion.
You can hear church mice run around on this board.
Ron's press releases have a fluffy feel to them even when they aren't entirely fluff. I've met him a few times, he seems legit....I think it may just be a French Canadian cultural thing. 868oz on a weekly pour is a run rate around 3700-3800 per month, and a nice improvement over January production.
Metanor Pours Record Gold Bar of 868 Oz
VAL-D'OR, QUEBEC--(Marketwire - Feb. 19, 2013) - Metanor Resources Inc. ('Metanor') (TSX VENTURE:MTO) is pleased to announce that it recently poured a 868 oz gold bar, it's most important to date. This pour represents a weeks' worth of gold production from the Bachelor Project. Since the conversion of the Bachelor mill from the Merryl-Crowe technology to Activated Carbon technology, the ore recovery has averaged 97% since Metanor poured its first bar in May 2012.
Ghislain Morin, President and CEO stated: "The Bachelor Project is well underway to become the next gold producer in Québec. We are very thankful for the effort of all our workers in attaining our objective of reaching commercial production in a secure environment."
Metanor is pleased to announce the nomination of Mr. Claude Imbeault as the General Manager of the Bachelor Project. Mr. Imbeault reintegrated the company in October 2012 after leaving the company in October 2010.
Claude Imbeault, Mine General Manager, stated: "The competence together with the hard work of all our workers has enabled the company to accelerate the safe development of our underground infrastructure and the ramp up of many stopes allowing a steady tonnage at the mill."
About Metanor
Metanor is a Canadian based gold mining company with a focus on adding value per share through efficient production, exploration, and development of it properties. Maintaining a low risk profile through a strong operating team, sound financial management, and operating in secure jurisdictions like Quebec are key priorities for Metanor's management team.
Qualified Person
Pascal Hamelin, P.Eng, Vice-president of Operations, is the Qualified Person under NI 43-101 responsible for reviewing and approving the technical information contained in this news release.
Cautionary Language and Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes certain statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements". All statements in this discussion, other than statements of historical facts, that address future exploration drilling, exploration activities, anticipated metal production, internal rate of return, estimated ore grades, commencement of production estimates and projected exploration and capital expenditures (including costs and other estimates upon which such projections are based) and events or developments that the Company expects, are forward looking statements. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance, and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include, metal prices, exploration successes, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
237,650,916 outstanding shares
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange, nor its Regulation Services Provider accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Contact Information:
Ronald Perry
Vice-President
514-262-8286
rperry@metanor.ca
Marketwire Canada
February 19, 2013 - 10:14 AM EST
I've sent out two copies now - if either of you that asked didn't get it let me know and I'll resend.
It came out a few weeks ago-if you want a copy shoot me your email.
I was expecting a bigger number given volume yesterday - did we ever figure out if these are 1 or 2 days old when they come out?
This is one of those very very long shots that I'm keeping a loose eye on just in case....the 'directmarket' platform could be worth something, and there could be something in the portfolios - you look at the last Q and there is a bunch of money that had to disappear between now and then for it to be all gone.
It's on pacer, so you need an account. I have a download, it's a big file. If you get me an email, I'll send it to you. The file also has the schedules. The list about 1 mm, but several asset categories are listed as 'not determined'. That includes the IP - don't know if that is worth anything, but it is patented. And the stocks and options. Like I said, the tickers I pulled up were worthless, but there were hundreds and hundreds and I only checked a few. Mgmt here never sold anything. Truly amazing, and they had 10s of millions of shares in many cases....I've followed bk for about 10 years now and I recognized several of the names on the lists....how did they ride so many into oblivion? You'll get a kick out of the list.
I'm a gold bug...how could I not have a SH account....but it's Metcoalfan for some reason.
I don't think D is looking to go offline on you guys, nor am I. I would like to discuss your understanding of ETFs and APs D. I've always focused on bk and small nano cap Canadian resource stocks and generic ETF discussion here clogs up the board a bit.
Was closing windows and found the UCC document I had up the other day....here was the language they used
15. The Debtors’ proffered “illustrative” valuations ranged from approximately $198
million to $265 million, assuming blended multiples ranging from 4.5x to 6.0x and (what now is
an outdated, low) EBITDA of $43.9 million.6 Based on FY2013 projected EBITDA of $47
million, the Debtors’ “illustrative” model suggests a valuation range of $210 million to $280
million. With only approximately $140 million in alleged pre-petition secured debt7 and
anticipated post-petition borrowings of around $50 million, the Debtors “illustrative” valuation
range implies unsecured creditor recoveries perhaps near $100 million. The Committee may
come to conclude that even this estimate is greatly understated, once it has had an opportunity to
diligence data and model further.
Mgmt's plan going into Chapter 11 to hand it over to Bayside is horrid. My first thought when the unsecured creditor committee stood up and called them out on it was that this case really had some legs - the underlying business is pretty solid, especially for a company in Chapter 11. But, some of the more recent motion practice by the UCC indicates a desire to reorg it....and they throw out some values - I'm not 100% sure that they are perfectly aligned with equity - I think they'd slap a value on the exit that would not exceed 100% of claims (if you look at their most recent numbers, they throw out some EBITDA based valuations that put them well into the money, but not enough for equity. I think with an EC though, I'd be all over it at .10.....but not so much without it.
I googled around a bit - the ETFs for the most part keep internal fees low by using the creation/redemption process via the APs, but everything I saw referenced alternative means for dealing with underlying index changes - they just didn't describe them. One site mentioned that index change type changes are one of the few instances where an ETF would incur direct trading fees. If the V.E. ETFs don't do it this way, maybe their is some sort of dutch auction or something for the APs. I just can't see the normal redemption process playing much of a role as GBG is now such an infinitesimal % of the funds NAV.
Platinum Spikes Following Report Of People Shot Outside Amplats South African Mine
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/18/2013 09:02 -0500
things like this won't help
I mentioned Crocodile only because it's one of the other cheapies I noticed on the list when I looked last week - if the regular AP redemption was behind GBGLF declines, we should see similar declines with Croc as it's relatively low priced (not .015 but not 3 or 4 bucks either). I'm thinking they absolutely must have an alternative arrangement for shuttling positions out of the fund...but I think you are definitely on to something that it's still done through APs perhaps.
Did you see the schedules filed with court? They contain printouts of all the stocks and options that are owned by debtor in its portfolio accounts....hundreds and hundreds, with millions of shares in many cases....though most that I looked up a price for were worthless.