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.
>>For a stock that has nothing to offer. We have traded more shares than emerson electric. Mainly due to that 1.4 million trade that just went through @ .002
I saw a 4 mm print at .002. Perspective though - GBG traded about $18 grand.....Emerson traded $342 million.
>>Maybe they are routing through another buyer and ETRADE just has the capability of selling.
I've watched Etrade route my orders through NITE and CSTI lately - in addition to ETRF.
>>I have had a 70,000 share buy order in at .0014 all day long and it never showed up on the LII.
A broker can only be at one place on the bid - if your order has been routed to say MAXM and MAXM is already inside bid for someone at .002, your order won't show up.
Looking at L2 now, it's safe to say your order has not been routed to CDEL
>>I don't think 1350 would increase GBGLF without a PR
What exactly would GBG press release at this point?
buy moar!!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw a thread on the yahoo board concerning my post about the budget - budget was not filed under seal - it's page 23 on attached link.
http://bmcgroup.com/restructuring/DocView.aspx?ClientID=323&DocNumber=34&CaseNo=1-13-bk-11761
Shanta JV went to Red Kite months ago outside of an auction.
>>If it's called a Business Rescue plan, do you not suppose there should be recovery of SOuthgold. Waste of time with one lined answers coming from you.
It is called a business rescue....but not everyone gets saved. There are many stakeholders in an insolvency: shareholders, unsecured creditors, secured creditors, vendors, employees....business rescue is about rescuing as many as possible, but there is a pecking order, and you guys are dead last.
The answer is no.
If these shares don't survive, this will go down as one of the more impressive pumps I've seen in a long time. I've watched this one on and off ever since it filed. I looked at the recent run with absolute incredulity from the sidelines. There was serious volume all the way up to .80. Still curious to see what happens here.
>>The questin is why Credit Suisse and Debenture Holder have accepted that deal ?
Credit Suisse took the deals because on both Hollister and Burnstone there are contingent back end payments built in for Credit Suisse. CS surely would have preferred cash in full, but that I don't believe was an option given the state of the market. They could have credit bid, but that would have required CS running the mines themselves, which apparently they didn't want to do. I'm less certain of why certain Debenture Holders would have voted for the deal - though we don't know who holds those. Sprott Resource held a big chunck (they didn't buy them, but they got them when they bought out FlatIron - that's why I asked Rick Rule his thoughts on Burnstone in the first place - I knew he would be familiar with the asset. Based on his answer, I'd guess Sprott dumped those debentures. Who bought them? They may have found a buyer (at a steep discount to par) who desired a chunk of debentures more for the votes than the payout they won't be getting.
>>For the most part. It seems that GBG has sold everything for cheap in order to get rid of their debt. By passing it on to the purchaser to worry about. Leaving them almost debt free, but surely asset free.
GBG sold the assets for what they could get - most of the unpaid debt is still there. Unsecured debt at the sub level that didn't have recourse to the parent dropped away, but the rest didn't.
Waterton owns it.
>>SEEMS TO BE A SCAM!
I don't know about SCAM. They appear to have more or less attempted to market the assets. Based on what I heard in Vancouver a few months ago, they didn't do the most thorough job, but I suspect that was more incompetence. Its mostly that they had to sell two mines during the worst market for the miner sector in fifty years. (and Burnstone had geologic problems and Hollister didn't have a mill, nearby). There was no big shock here.
Anybody seen the six week budget that was attached to one of the motions filed a couple days ago? It's showing positive cash flow of over a million a week, on average for the next six weeks. I need to cram this weekend on the seasonality and cost structure of hog farming.
>>WHY has the Hollister mine and Nevada gold asset information not all been removed from the GBG website?
Because that requires paying the webmaster....and they ain't got no cash.
>>Fulltime job posted June 6th for GBG-Hollister mine!
June 6th 2012....oops, there went that theory
Posted: June 6, 2012
Position type: Full time
Region: North America
Location: Nevada, USA
Company: Jobs by PMjobs.net
Industry: Mining Jobs
Category: Engineering/Tech
Type: Full time
It appears FEEDQ is off the greys and back on the pinks as there is active level 2 detail today
spread is currently .0862 by .15
>>The trap is the bid/ask spread and all the MM has to do is keep jumping ahead of the ASK by .0001 to keep it from going higher. It goes where the MM's say it goes.
The spread is a trap for the unsuspecting. Believe me, the MM would love to see the ask go higher - they'd sell it .0013 by .005 all day if they could. The problem for you guys is more likely that they are all licking their chops to naked short you shares around .002 - it's competition for the easy money that is keeping the ask down. :)
I've had orders in most of the morning, around where I believe the invisible grey ask is and had a very hard time getting fills. (@ Etrade) Anybody else having the same problem?
This case is really quite interesting. You have the perfect storm on one hand of bankruptcy and irregularties in China and not current with SEC on financials, all of which scare the bezeesus out of most people, rightfully so. But on the other hand, you have a stalking horse bid on the US assets that validates that there are legitimate aspects to the operations, and that bid covers basically all the claims with plenty of assets left over.
On that 500 mm in assets that I've seen in several news feeds, that is not my reading of the bk filing - they checked the box for 100 to 500 million in assets and the box for 10 to 100 million in liabilities - the idiots that write these stories end up stating 500 mm in assets and 100 mm in liablities. Just based on the ratio of US revenue to the stalking horse bid applied to the Chinese revenue number last reported in September '12 (anyone have anything more recent?), it seems rather safe to assume that the Chinese ops are worth at least 25 million (don't flame, they could be worth much more, but not much less and all I'm looking for is a conservative floor that would justify picking up some shares now).
Looking at L2, you guys could ramp the pps to .0034 for less than $500.....unless you are being iceberged rope a dope style.
>>Maybe some still have access to the yahoo mb, I certainly don't.
There is a back door to the yahoo boards. Pull up the message board for any random stock....there you will get a search box - put FEEDQ in there and you will reach the 'hidden' board.
>>I'm trying to better understand what is going on, SOuthgold still exists. The part that hasn't been mentioned is how are the SOuthgold shares going to be transferred to WITS.
It's pretty simple....on Southgold's stock transfer books they cross out 'Great Basin Gold Ltd' and replace it with 'Wits', or Wit's subsidiary designee.
>>How do you explain the present, $3.00+ one year price target for GBGLF shares?
C'mon GPB. Where is the ANALyst report backing up that projection. I suspect you know better.
>>so they will leave it, as a GBG subsidiary
But 1) that's the exact opposite of what is happening (all issued shares of Burnstone being transferred to Wits and 2) it would be a violation of Wits fiduciary duty to it's shareholders to share any future pie with you guys.
>>It would be very smart for WitsGold to run Great Basin Gold as a separate entity or subsidiary under the WitsGold umbrella. Just incase they must quickly liquidate Burnstone; if this unlikely scenario comes to fruition our GBGLF shares will be honoured only if the mine is profitable?
Please do explain in more detail how you think this would work....needing GBG shell in the event Southgold needed to be quickly liquidated. This should be really good.
>>? transfer to Wits Gold or its designee
???????????????????????????????????????????????????.
Wits will no doubt set up a new subsidiary corp to be designee, that's all that means.
"The proposed plan provides for the transfer to Wits Gold or its designee of all the shares issued by Southgold."
>>What does that mean as GBG shareholders, do we still own Southgold?
uh no, Wits Gold gets all the shares issues by Southgold.
Stump - can you inbox me an addy?
>>Wits shareholders don't seem all that happy
Indeed, because the only thing worse than Wits management making one mine not work with shareholder money is Wits management pouring money down two bottomless pits at the same time.
>>i think all of the gold options were discussed and then closed out early on in this process.
I recall the same.
>>On June 28, 2013 the proceedings commenced under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act were terminated. There is no line of creditors anymore.
Pffft. No line of creditors anymore? Trust me, they are still in line of front of you....it's just that there isn't enough there to satisfy their claims to justify the cost of CCAA.
>>call options in 2014,2015,2016 could be in the money, I donot think GBG has sold those call options, how do GBGLF shareholder get those call options?
They could be in the money then....but they most definitely aren't now. Look at current pricing for 12/2014 options, they ain't worth doodly, and there is a very long line of creditors in front of you still.
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_quotes_openOutcry_options.html?exchange=XCEC&foi=OPT&venue=F&productCd=GCJ4&underlyingContract=GC&floorContractCd=GCJ4&expMonth=201404&prodid=
(you have to change month and switch strike range to all)
It was bought by the Chinese, at bk auction. Wanxiang outbid JCI.
>>Am I correct in thinking GBG is now debt free and penny less? Without anyone to manage the company.
As a follow up to this question, there are certain rare instances where a complex corporate structure can lead to a decent payout when a parent holding company winds up almost pennyless but mostly debt free. Oilsands Quest is a great example, and it also happens to be a Canadian company (don't buy the shares - their plan has already been confirmed and the monitor has indicated they will distribute cash via record holders on the confirmation date, which has long since passed - that's a whole different effed up problem that can creep into bk investing). The legal term at question is 'substantive consolidation' - sometimes cases are substantively consolidated and sometimes they are not - it all depends on how well mgmt maintained the books when the company was operational. I'll explain how Oilsands worked because it provides a great example of how GBGLF won't work. I'm going to use round numbers from distant memory. All of Oilsands operations and basically all assets were held in a subsidiary of the corporation in which public shareholders held shares. The sub had let's say 100 million in debts. The assets were basically sold for about 10 million. A seemingly clear case of shareholders being up poop creek. If you looked at the SEDAR filings, it showed 100 mm of debt (again, maybe it was 50, I don't completely remember). But it was all trade payables at the sub level, and consolidated out of the quarterly financials was a 100 mm loan from the parent to the sub. So when the sub sold it's assets for 10 million and it came down to determining how to split that up, there was 100 million of payables to outside creditors and 100 mm of loans from the parent. Outside creditors got 5 mm and parent got 5 mm. Parent basically had no debt, so shareholders of parent will split the 5 mm, probably later this year (but only holders of record from several months back, as it appears). So that's how it can sometimes work that even a crappy sale for pennies on the dollar can still benefit the vulture investors who scarfed up shares for .002. The problem with GBG in addition to the secured debt (aka death-vice), is that GBG issued debentures guaranteed at the parent level. There will be a lot of trade debt at the Southgold level that gets lopped off via this Wits deal, but way too much will survive at the parent level where you guys are last in line. You guys can call this bashing or whatever you want - buy more if you are sure my presence here is part of some grand conspiracy - I follow bankruptcies, both successful ones and unsuccessful ones - has anyone here ever heard the term 'survivor bias' (aka Survivorship bias)? Anyone who still doesn't get why anyone would follow a losing prospect, might be something worth checking out on google.
>>Ok, so how does that work out if GBGL is in Receivership and Still owns 100% of Southgold
Wits owns Southgold now - or they will once the paperwork is all signed in the very near future. They bought it for fractions of pennies on the dollar, although they did assume some Southgold debt as part of the package. Credit Suisse will get their money back via that assumed debt if Burnstone can ever be put in production, but noone else will. These are the bad deals that get made at the bottom of the market cycle, not in anyway unlike Hollister.
>>Am I correct in thinking GBG is now debt free and penny less?
Even better, they are pennyless, but not even close to debt free.
>>Southgold would, from generated actual cash flow, repay the remaining $170.1-million liability.
I believe the 170 is basically CS's secured debt - if it makes you shareholders feel any better, the unsecured creditors are taking the same bath as you.
>>So why is WITS willing to loan Southgold 950 Million Rand which is still 100% owned by Great Basin
WITS buys the Southgold shares from Great Basin, then lends the 950 mm Rand to what is then their own subsidiary.
>>I refuse to jump to extremes of conclusion until the full BRP is released w/ appropriate GBG PR
GBG shareholders needed around 600 to 700 million from Burnstone to get in the money.....you guys got 10 bucks....this isn't exactly one of those cases where it comes down to checking the nitty gritty details.