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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VAUGHN who wrote (754)	3/24/1998 11:44:00 PM
From: GULL	Respond to of 7235

To:Vaughn From:Gull I note with interest that the same vagaries and anomalies that were available to all parties concerned have been utilised only by the heirs lawyer and not by SUF and RG! I trust that you are definitely NOT quoting SUF management as you are assuming that that SA laws are substandard,this in a country that SUF has invested a great deal of time and money in. We will all be watching the newswire with great interest. I hope that the fat lady sings soon.

To: VAUGHN who wrote (754)	3/24/1998 11:58:00 PM
From: S. E. Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Hi, Vaughn. I've been reading this thread for some time now. I have greatly appreciated the posts that you, Goalie and many others have made. I have a question for you and Goalie. It seems from your discussion that the effect of the re-registration of the heirs' rights into a corporation may have significantly decreased SUF's and Randgold's chances of retaining title. Obviously, if the heirs really do deserve title, it should go to them. However, this move looks more like a quirky way for the heirs to gain title when no title actually should exist for them. Yet that quirk in the law appears, from your comments, to have real effect and weight. Am I reading your comments correctly or becoming unnecessarily alarmed?