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 : International Tournigan(ITG.V)announces major discovery -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rdww who wrote (245)	4/6/1998 5:17:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 347

Thanks for the voice of reasons, you will be forever indepted to by me. Yes, I will add up the compare and contrast latter and do a Due Dilly revieve of my own, maybe someone else can see the two sets of NR that came out, the same REVISIONARY NR change happened a yeay ago with the blame put on that SICK CONTRACTOR heading the drill crews; it was no where to be seen, yet in cleaning my files I found THAT disappearing NR last month. It absolutely amases me how the VSE can LET PR/NRs be changed and left with the same date. That is truth, otherwise is fiction. Chuca

To: rdww who wrote (245)	4/7/1998 9:58:00 AM
From: MWS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 347

Its my understanding that the news release of 12 Feb was a problem because it said that shareholders approval for the deal would be sought at the AGM. This was a mistake on the part of IR at ITG - Someone at ITG wasn't paying attention to the legaleze and the VSE called them on it and rightfully so. The release was worded far too casually - what it should have said was that the project will be discussed at the AGM. As for the deadline, the option was to expire on the 20th of Feb and the deal was inked on the 27th. So yes, maybe there should have been news saying the option is still open after the deadline. But clearly the company was still working on it and probably realized the deal was nearly done - They just waited the week to tell us about it. I agree with you regarding the less than aggressive stance taken by the co with the VSE. They don't seem to be chasing them down. But I understand they are working hard on the financing for the feasibility study. I don't know enough about dealing with the VSE to know whether being aggressive with their DD people actually gets you anywhere or puts you in the doghouse. On the other hand if there is a problem with the wording/details in the agreement wouldn't the VSE come back to ITG and request clarification? If this is the case, either the VSE or the co should be able to tell us about this. You said a deal is a deal regardless of the $ amount. I disagree with this statement. I think the larger the $ amount the more perceived risk in terms of overinflated claims, potential risk to shareholders, legal liability for the exchange (assuming there is such a thing). I know of one deal back in '95 for an oil exploration outfit that was rejected by the VSE because it was too ambitious a deal. Hopefully that won't happen here. As for the deal sitting in the IN basket, I agree that's just me being overly suspicious (because I know there were other agents looking for this deal, those who might like to see ITG fail so that they can pick it up). I hope that isn't the case.