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.

Non-Tech : Le coin des francophones -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (8465)	12/3/1999 12:46:00 PM
From: AriKirA	Respond to of 77509

Claude, J'aime bien les commentaires et l'interpretation de timbouctu! To: DoubleD (564 ) From: timbouctou Thursday, Dec 2 1999 10:17AM ET Reply # of 570 This makes alot of sense to me. It would in fact explain why PGD granted the right of first refusal to Barrick: because it means nothing. All a company has to do is pruchase MDN, therefore getting 30% of Tulawaka. Then it pruchases 50%+1 of PGD, getting control of the Tulawaka property (it would actually need to purchase less than 50% of PGD to do this), regardless of ABX's first refusal. The first refusal right only applies to PGD. The more I think about it, the more this seems like a good strategy. It seems that they are forcing Barrick to purchase MDN if they care about their first refusal right, because if Barrikc does not own MDN, then its first refusal right is meaningless with respect to Tulawaka, if someone grabs a portion of PGD (at market prices). PGD's decisions to grant the right actually seems quite strategic. By granting it to Barrick, it ensures that Barrick must purchase MDN, at all cost. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a bidding war develop on MDN at some point. This would have great repercussions on PGD price. So it was a smart move after all.