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 : BRE-X, Indonesia, Ashanti Goldfields, Strong Companies.

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: hugh thorne who wrote (3624)1/15/1997 1:28:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton   of 28369
 
>then it should mean that ABX and BXM do not have a legally
>binding deal as it would still be subject to conditions.

Just so no one is mislead, a "legally binding agreement" can have "conditions." All a "condition" requires is for a specified state of affairs to be present or event to take place before a contractual obligation must be performed. The non-occurrence or failure of the "condition" would discharge the performance of the obligation subject to that condition, but the overall agreement is still binding.

So Bre_X and Barrick may or may not have a legally binding agreement. It will probably require years of litigation to find out for sure.

I am speculating, but I cannot imagine that Walsh, having the clear intelligence and/or sound advice to guide this matter toward an auction process, would not also have the smarts to include a clause in Bre-X's "legally binding agreement" with Barrick allowing Bre-X to opt out if a better deal comes along and Barrick does not want to at least match it.

If it is my place to judge, I think Walsh also seems to be doing a pretty good job. People criticize him in general terms, but what, SPECIFICALLY, has he done wrong and why?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext