Light fodder for discussion while waiting for the court's ruling.
Hypothetically speaking, assume for a moment that prior to the emergence of the "heirs'" claim, that the rapid development of the processing plant, effectively elevating the status of SUF from prospector to diamond producer, raised the topic of controlling interest around the water cooler at De Beers. Whether motivated by the list of potential claims, or, by the opportunity to make the statement ' ... not in my backyard', if this were the case, which of the following alternatives is more appealing?
$20.80 Cdn x 30.5 million shares x 51% = $223 Million U.S. approx.
or
($9.00 Cdn x 30.5 million shares x 51%) + 75 million rand
= $110 Million U.S. approx.
Reaching ... perhaps, but SUF's April 20th NR regarding Shareholder's Rights Plan to be voted on June 25th indicated that measures were being implemented in case of that eventuality, and from Factfinder's posting 1111 we see that De Beers has $4bn U.S. in loan finance of which $1.5bn is earmarked for BHP's stake in Ekati. If marketing rights was the main objective, that would have been negotiated by now. I think they want the Full Monty ... and first are trying at half price.
Hypothetically speaking of course. |
