I see where you're coming from Blindman but I don't think that will work effectively.
So much has changed since the sale contract went into default.
New CEO.
A new acquisition (Mustang Island) with full production a month or so away.
More outstanding shares.
The possibility of super duper financing in the not too distant future...
If the VML deal survives litigation it will (IMO) be because the new pre-approved financing came through, and that will be different as well. See, whereas before we just had ownership of the lease, we'll get VML "back" and it will already be financed. Much better than simply having the lease.
That's my take. So I guess what I'm saying is, if the price per share is going to move based on keeping the VML asset, this time around it'll move on an already financed condition. I would think that's much more appealing in the eyes of investors vs simply owning the lease.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
