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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocket Red who wrote (25159)	1/1/2000 11:50:00 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Red, If I remember correctly, there are covenants attached to the money raised by Aber prior to the Tiffany deal. It could only be spent on Diavik and no where else. Aber had to raise the funds for Snap Lake separately. I think that is one of the reasons why Aber wanted to spin off "Aber-ex" last year, but had to shelve that plan when they missed the payment deadline and got diluted to 16%(perhaps ironically, if ABZ had done a big financing for "Aber-ex", maybe it is WSP that would have had dificulty meeting deadlines for big budget programs and end up being diluted:-)). Even though Aber had the money, I suspect that they couldn't technically write the cheque without being in default on the covenants attached to the money they had raised(remember that the Tiffany deal hadn't been done yet). That is just another reason why IMO, Aber will lose the case they have brought against WSP. IMO, everything they have claimed is just "smoke" in an attempt to cover up their default. Aber may still have to raise their share of the funds for Snap Lake over and above the cash they have on hand, unless there are no covenants attached to the money raised in the Tiffany deal. There are probably still a few twists and turns remaining in the road ahead, but I remain confident that WSP will prevail and retain 84% interest in the project. regards, teevee