Rubicon

[Balance]

The logical step to benefit from the strategic review is to switch from RBC to Tenon?

AborGen has been a burden for RBC and looks like will be a burden for a while yet.

[biker]

The logical step to benefit from the strategic review is to switch from RBC to Tenon?

AborGen has been a burden for RBC and looks like will be a burden for a while yet.

Bearing in mind RBC hold 60% of TEN and that the market is currently putting a value of just $US10-11Million on Rubicon's share of ArborGen, or an enterprise value of just 30-44 Million, I would still see greater upside in RBC even with its pending liability.
If/when ArborGen eventually becomes profitable the upside for RBC is considerable, while also being exposed to 60% of pending TEN gains. I am happy to forego 40% of TEN gains to retain exposure to the ArborGen potential, and accept the increased risk for the potentially much greater reward.
Also the lack of liquidity in both stocks would make switching any meaningful quantity quite difficult at these prices.

[Balance]

Bearing in mind RBC hold 60% of TEN and that the market is currently putting a value of just $US10-11Million on Rubicon's share of ArborGen, or an enterprise value of just 30-44 Million, I would still see greater upside in RBC even with its pending liability.
If/when ArborGen eventually becomes profitable the upside for RBC is considerable, while also being exposed to 60% of pending TEN gains. I am happy to forego 40% of TEN gains to retain exposure to the ArborGen potential, and accept the increased risk for the potentially much greater reward.
Also the lack of liquidity in both stocks would make switching any meaningful quantity quite difficult at these prices.

According to the last AR, RBC is still having to pump money into AborGen to keep it going. That does not fill me with confidence about any valuation attached to AborGen.

[beetills]

NBR today has a headline that reads"""Bait and Switch allegations behind Rubicon lawsuit""
Because it's behind paid content i will have to wait untill i go to the library to see what the story is,unless someone on here can enlighten me and others.

[Crac A Jac]

According to the last AR, RBC is still having to pump money into AborGen to keep it going. That does not fill me with confidence about any valuation attached to AborGen.

Looks like, despite debt, Tenon is paying dividends,pumping money mainly to Rubicon, which does make you wonder how and why Rubicon should exist; where is the added value?? the market can't see it either.
Why should Tenon effectively borrow money to give Rubicon dividends?.

[ari]

NBR today has a headline that reads"""Bait and Switch allegations behind Rubicon lawsuit""
Because it's behind paid content i will have to wait untill i go to the library to see what the story is,unless someone on here can enlighten me and others.

Thought someone would have enlightened us by now....you have me intrigued now. Surely someone on here has an NBR sub.

[iceman]

Thought someone would have enlightened us by now....you have me intrigued now. Surely someone on here has an NBR sub.

The article talks about the US lawsuit and says court documents show allegations RBC played a part in “bait and switch” operation to rip off staff at Arborgen. Basically comes down to claims of deceit against the Board and Management of Arborgen involving an attempt to deny staff their rightful share of the growing value of the Company.

A court filing shows an employee who was offered employment by Arborgen in November 2002 as a research associate at a base salary of $US46,500 a year, plus participation in the firm’s “New Value Added” equity plan. His initial NVA award was 1250 units.
A document detailing the terms of the original NVA scheme said units were worth 0.0001% of the equity value of the company.
However, according to the plaintiffs Arborgen in 2004 distributed a different NVA document to staff and represented it as the only one in existence.
This scheme valued units at 0.00001% of equity value – a tenth of the original agreement.
A staff meeting called by chief executive Barbara Wells to discuss the plan in 2004 was described as “contentious”. According to the claim, Ms Wells “shouted angrily several times ‘there never was another plan’,” and said “you should treat this as a gift”.
Staff were induced to sign the allegedly revised plan in subsequent small-group meetings with managers.
Under the scheme, NVA units would be paid out in cash if the LLC became a corporation or upon a “trigger event”.
Arborgen became a Delaware corporation in 2010 and filed documents for an initial public offer and Nasdaq listing.
The claimants then sought a court order that the company should have paid out under the original offer.
The statement of claim asserted that Arborgen’s fair value when it corporatized in June 2010 was $US750m, while a 2008 company document deemed its value in 2002 to be $US100m.
Based on the difference between those two valuations, claimants asserted the NVA units were worth $US650 each – a level that would make Mr Foutz’s award worth $US812,500.

[ari]

Thanks iceman.....I would assume the plaintiffs still work for Arborgen......certainly not helping company staff relationships. What a fekin mess!

[drcjp]

Well the result is out: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11571751

and its not pretty..........Moriaty comes in for some harsh criticism by the judge.

I'm glad I got out of this when I did.

[ari]

Well the result is out: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11571751

and its not pretty..........Moriaty comes in for some harsh criticism by the judge.

I'm glad I got out of this when I did.

Really something for Moriaty to be proud of....time for him to bow out....no, just piss off!!!!!