Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Houston_CPA who wrote (47142)	6/30/1999 6:01:00 PM
From: marc chatman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

I'm not sure I understand the theory. Or maybe I just disagree. Is your theory that RIG changed its legal domicile in order to benefit German, French and Norwegian corporate shareholders of RIG? To the detriment of the many US funds which were forced out because they can't own shares in a Cayman corp.? I would be astonished if that were true. I would have guessed that the vast majority of RIG shares were/are held by US funds and that the US funds drive the market for RIG. Why would RIG take an action for the purpose of benefiting only a very small minority of its current and potential shareholders? Perhaps that is a by-product -- I don't know the tax laws of those European countries, so I couldn't hazard a guess. But the primary intent?