Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Copper Fox -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LiveLife who wrote (9913)	3/10/2016 8:18:26 PM
From: brundall	2 Recommendations Recommended By Panthergirl Underhill69 Respond to of 10654

Well think about it logically Foxy.....in order to finance their plans at Van Dyke & CarMax and to pay expenses for the remainder of 2016 they need around $20 million. At the current 15 or so cents per share that would mean issuing 133 million new shares and raising the outstanding share count to a monumental 550 million or so. Roll back shares 10 to 1 and their outstanding share count after raising $20 million only rises to around 55 million. Dilution of over 30% is inevitable in the near future under both scenarios but a post rollback Copper Fox would be in a much stronger position moving forward when they need to raise money again in 2017/18 A post rollback Copper Fox (after the dust settles) would be a great investment opportunity imo but only if they still owned 25% of Schaft Creek.

To: LiveLife who wrote (9913)	3/10/2016 8:51:35 PM
From: specboy2012	1 Recommendation Recommended By Panthergirl Respond to of 10654

Foxy what was this company you mention being bought out for 350 million with a billion shares.TIA dear.

To: LiveLife who wrote (9913)	3/11/2016 12:11:08 AM
From: louel	2 Recommendations Recommended By Panthergirl Underhill69 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

Nobody can sue anybody for a roll back. The management does it in the best interests of the shareholder majority. Only those underwater have a tendency to get burned. It has no affect on those at par. And is actually a benefit for the people who's ACB is in profit at the time of consolidation. No contract guaranteeing a profit on warrants or shares purchased at higher prices is ever issued. It does not in any manner, represent any sort of fraudulent maneuver. And if it did require a vote, EE is the control person. No one else's permission is required. It may never happen. They still have the secret amount they got paid for the Liard shares when they transferred them to the J/V. However much that is. For the sake of those with losses in their positions it would be better not to. But if you look at the number occurring on the Venture exchange over the last year or two, it would not surprise me.