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 (845)	4/16/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: Goalie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Vaughn: I take it the old guard is leftover from apartheid days... While no racial implications were mentioned, there are a number of "funny" things that have gone on...some irregularities, missing protocols, speedy (highly unusual) approval of registration of the heirs' new company by a deed office (similar to our notary public's office), the way the woman lawyer for the heirs stated she had no mandate to accept SUF's offer the very moment CJ put the number on the table, and she walked out to sign a prospecting contract with DeB... Who supplied the Financial Post the incorrect info published that there had been a tendering process when, in fact, wasn't a proper legal bidding process? And, BTW, an FP person was on the call, we'll see if he retracts...It was suggested that SUF will issue a rebuttle on the false statement that DeB won the bidding.There was no legal bidding process! And, CJ doesn't know DeB's agenda in this whole thing. But "somebody" had to finance the heirs' court, legal etc... What is, however, encouraging, is that (a) SUF/RG acted according to S.A. laws "to the letter"; (b) that the Min of Mines has the expropriation power and can act swiftly; and (c) the political/ international investment scene will put sufficient pressure on SA to do this thing "right". Regards.