I'm not up for you - I'm up for the Japanese. Working with folks 8 hours ahead of you is annoying at best. I hope you had a lovely weekend 'mid'. I'm looking at (IMO only) a pyramid with the majority of shareholders owning the least number of shares as the ground or base level. As one goes higher and higher on the pyramid we go to the increasingly smaller number of shareholders who own the greatest amount of shares. I suspect that would put SEO on the topmost spot. It seems logical to me (were I to be a potential buyer of ERHC) to, over a period of time, keep the price as low as possible - while steadily increasing share price. As time goes by and as the share price goes up, shareholders will begin to sell beginning with layer one and moving upward on the ownership scale. Theoretically, a potential buyer could strike a deal with the majority shareholder that is more handsome. The more shareholders who opt "out" at lower prices makes the potential buyer more able to offer the majority shareholder a higher price for his shares without the buyer paying more than he feels necessary. This makes sense to me - it might not to you.
To me this allows the buyer to offer an SEO a higher price than he really deserves (thus satisfying him) without hurting me as the potential buyer. Possibly, if a buyer were to put one price per share on the table for all shareholders and at a price that would satisfy SEO, it would be financially unfeasible for the buyer. If SEO agreed to sell his shares but to do so over an extended period of time with a guaranteed promise of specific price levels, theoretically everyone would be happy. We minority shareholders (and of course others) would slowly begin to sell "out" our shares the higher, over time, the share price became. While also selling, but more slowly, SEO would over time and at considerably higher share prices turn his majority interest over to the potential buyer. Naturally I could be wrong as it reeks of illegalities. But it might not be as all shareholders sell as they wish and when they wish. The entire GAP negotiation involves a time thread. Is it likely? Who knows? Is it possible? I think so. It's not a buyout - it's a buyin. There are people who will "hold" for all eternity.
AI
