SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: nempela who wrote (1188)5/22/1998 1:43:00 AM
From: GULL  Read Replies (1) of 7235
 
Could it be that SUF dropped its court case because it had no case?

Amazing that this obvious conclusion evades everybody.

This is what I saw happen at court:

The court convened and the SUF counsel stood up and asked for a 15 minute adjournment.

The following then transpired:

1.SUF abandoned the Section 17 application.
2.SUF abandoned the Interdict restraining the heirs/NGS from dealing with the mineral rights.
3.The Section 24 which everyone is so excited about has been ongoing for some time now and IMHO is of academic importance to the heirs as SUF have agreed to pay the same price as De Beers.

I am amused at your impudence in suggesting that De Beers are not world leaders in marketing as well as mining and exploration.
Why would SUF hire so many ex-De Beers staff if this was not the case.

Have a look at the manager in charge of the Klipspringer Project where did he come from?
You can find all these details on the SUF homepage.

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News