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: VAUGHN who wrote (815)4/7/1998 9:08:00 PM
From: S. E. Baker  Read Replies (1) of 7235
 
Hi, Vaughn and Jadrew. I'm no longer sure that the heirs would have been required to register the rights years ago. My thought is that the mineral rights were embedded in the surface property and would have automatically transferred when the heirs transferred the property rights from the original owners to themselves. In that case the heirs might reasonably claim current ownership of the mineral rights, with their new company simply being the repository for their individual pieces of those rights. If so, then this would not be a nuisance suit but rather a perfectly good act to enforce legitimate rights. Randgold was supposed to do the title search and may simply have blown it. Keep in mind that I am only speculating here, and properly informed legal eagles can tell me if I am on track or not! :-)

As for determining the value of the heirs rights, Jadrew, I think you are right that SUF et al could pay a bunch of money here and still have the expenditure be worthwhile. They only checked one pipe on the property and it was a beaut. $25M worth of share in the property could go to the heirs and SUF could still do great. However, having another company bidding does complicate things.

I continue to have a question relating to whether the situation SUF faces is different in any way from the situation Randgold faces. Does anyone know whether the heirs' claims are differentially aimed at Randgold and only peripherally affecting SUF's 65% or does all this fooferaw put both companies at the same degree of potential damage?

Steve
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