Yes, I certainly read Misfit's message this morning. I always read everything he writes, and I always give him a green thumb.
For the most part, his analysis is so much like my own, that I saw no reason to express my own thoughts. However, we differ in one significant aspect, with respect to the future implications of what he describes as a stalemate. His argument is more black and white than mine, in that he argues that absent complete control over FWR, Noront should walk away. I think that decision would be ill-advised.
At anything over 20% shareholder status, Noront is a control person in law, with respect to FWR. I'm not going to try and predict whose holdings will end up being larger, Noront's or Cliffs', but I'd like to take you back to the dissident actions taken by the institutions to remove Richard Nemis from control of Noront. They were able to accomplish that without having a true controlling interest (i.e. 50 % + 1 vote) in the shares of Noront. My simplest assumption is that Noront and Cliffs might end up with similar amounts of shares in FWR, and that will put them on an equivalent footing for subsequent discussions. Although Noront hasn't yet revealed any financial backing for their offer and future development plans, let's not forget the institutional ownership and Rothschild as their financial advisor. A silent partner or two would seem to be a reasonable assumption, at this point in time.
As I stated earlier, if one party (Cliffs or Noront) goes for full control of the BoD of FWR, they'd have to make a rather substantial offer for the other party's control person stake in the corporation. Far more likely, IMHO, is a cooperative development stance going forward. I have always maintained that this whole process was indeed targetted at forcing that to happen, i.e. to force Cliffs to work with Noront, at the very least. Noront was certainly hopeful that they'd do better than that, i.e. seize full control of FWR's assets, but I don't think that was the primary objective.
Lar
