00:01
So, the first step is to summarize the arguments for advising superfund that the properties are grossly overpriced at $42 million.
00:17
So, the properties were previously impaired.
00:21
Last year, both u and mountain resources agreed that the value of these unproved properties have been impaired resulting in a write -down of $6 million.
00:31
This indicates that the properties were not considered to have a significant value at that time.
00:37
Second is lack of developable resources.
00:49
Here, mountain resources drilled several exploratory wells and found no developable resources.
00:55
This suggests that properties may not have potential for significant future revenue generation.
01:01
Third is discrepancy between carrying value and sales price.
01:28
The sales price of $42 million is significantly higher than the carrying value of $9 million.
01:34
This raises concern about the accuracy and reasonableness of the sales price, especially considering the previous impairment.
01:43
Fourth is lack of information from mountain resources.
02:03
The management of mountain resources has declined to discuss the details of negotiation which raises suspicions about what representations they may have made to superfund regarding the properties.
02:14
Now, let's summarize the arguments for the remaining silent and not offering any advice to superfund...