Tamaman, you and I are in the same boat and I think we are both confident enough (you) or stubborn enough (me) to go down with the ship if need be. I hope we get the favorable outcome you envisage, but let me flag some the reasoning in your posts.
In the first paragraph of 3776 there are two arguments.
1) You believe that the fact that GBGLF is in CCAA/BR means the courts, monitor, and BRP believe restructuring is better for creditors than forced liquidation despite the expenses relating to restructuring.
Comment: Yes, but that is setting the bar so low it doesn't benefit shareholders. I read a number of articles about CCAA and BR early in this process and I recall that BR has a success rate around 55% and CCAA has a success rate around 42%. It is unclear what proportion of those cases benefited shareholders. The most reasonable thing to take from the fact that we are in CCAA/BR in isolation is that creditors have about a 50/50 chance of some success and for us it is less.
2) If the estimates on Burnstone were not true, we would not be in CCAA/BR.
Comment: Doubts about the value Burnstone are not only compatible with CCAA/BR, but they have in fact plagued the process. The legal wrangling between creditors was originally based on doubts about the value of Burnstone.
In the second paragraph, you note
3) that the sale of Burnstone is priced in dollars means it is tailored for the Chinese.
Comment: The debt is in USD, I doubt the BRP has any strong preferences about who pays the debt. Further it is common for these things to be priced in USD.
4) A Chinese consortium purchased Gold One at a 60-70% premium, valuing it at 660 million with 4 million (P&P). [Therefore, they are game to acquire and pay up.]
Comment: We have reason and rumor to think Gold One is interested and so, it is reasonable to reflect on what they might be willing to pay, but I think you are leaning on the acquisition of Gold One too much. That acquisition had some complicating factors that make it a poor case to analogize from. The acquisition occurred in three phases: first, they bought 17.7 percent, second, they bought up to 60% of shares, and then later in the third phase they bought the remaining shares. The market knew about the acquisition during the second and third phase so the rise in the stock was unavoidable. Maybe they couldn't avoid disclosure or a phased acquisition. I am not sure where the 660 mil number comes from, but it seems high. When I google - Chinese buy gold one - I find a Bloomberg article that puts the purchase price around 469 mil (USD), but I think that number is high also because the article seems to presume they paid A.55 per share for all the shares, but that is only the rate they paid for the final 40% of the acquisition. In the second phase they paid A.40 and in the first phase it would have been below that. Also, in buying Gold One they are buying a business with legal entities in Australia and South Africa and they are choosing to team with that management for future acquisitions and development. So, it is not really analogous to buying a property. I think the takeaway from the Chinese buying Gold One is just that Gold One is Chinese backed and potentially more deep-pocketed than it might seem by looking at the financials. To understand what kind of offer we might get from Gold One on Burnstone (or Goliath Gold which is mostly owned by Gold One) we have to look at their statements about the kinds of acquisitions they want to make and the acquisitions they actually do make.
As I look at it, if the sale of Hollister can get the claims hurdle under or near 300 mil, then it seems the odds are on our side.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
