Were HAT's majority shareholders & insiders also majority (or otherwise substantial) shareholders of NCR prior to the announcement of the takeover?; and

By what process of reasoning did Hat's management come to give HAT a "fair market value" of $1.80 at the time the takeover was announced?

Sub-question: If based on "market price" at that time (around Apr 2009), then how does that square with HAT's reasons for adopting the "poison pill" back at a time when HAT's shares were (IIRC) above $3.00 (ie "Can't have a takeover occur by bidding and buying on the Stock Market, when the Market is valuing us too low")?

Once management had come out in public with a statement valuning HAT at $1.80, prior to all drilling being finished, why the surprise at a rotten price performance prior to drilling re-commencing?

Was this deal just a way to "reload" the open market manipulators with cheap shares? or for HAT's majority shareholders to swap cheap speculative (which means "maybe worthless" paper for undervalued HAT shares, shares with a proven yet undetermined underlying asset? Or to test how sticky retail hands were? Were retail hands "too sticky" for HAT's majority's liking, and thus led to the need for more shares to be issued?

They say that Denison had put NCR in play, and forced HAT's hand: but maybe these guys all go to the same whorehouses, eh?

And then the issue of those 1.80 shares were delayed almost into the drilling season itself.

Ten million shares out in Nov: and they all show a profit, as of today.

What about the 3$ a share investors from the placements in 2008, two years ago?

Too bad about them, eh Hat? "Buyer beware", eh?