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: Goalie who wrote (928)	4/21/1998 7:31:00 PM
From: Confluence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Easy does it Goalie. Good, but unanswered questions. Just like Gull's. Time will tell. Be patient. The money made or lost is just money. If SUF has a good future, time is on the side of those who are long. If the future is bleak, the bad stuff must happen soon for the shorts. Confluence

To: Goalie who wrote (928)	4/21/1998 9:19:00 PM
From: S. E. Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

To All: Today I called Lee Barker at SUF to get their side of things. He was very professional and helpful. I strongly suggest that anyone feel free to call him for a detailed review. What follows below is my edit of what Lee told me. I want to express my appreciation to Lee for filling me in and hope that I do not overstep any bounds in summarizing here for the benefit of the members of this thread. The folks at SUF are fully aware of INFOMAN's post to this thread on 4/20. Lee spoke at considerable length to me point-by-point, stating exactly where SUF's position differs from Infoman's personal views. His defense of SUF was clear and seemed to me to be forthright. Obviously, we will see, as Confluence has been saying, but I admit to finding Lee persuasive and straightforward. He stated that SUF did not act illegally in any way on the Marsfontein property. They went through all legal requirements, were acting as agent for Randgold (which he said is common practice), and that the legal clause cited by Infoman is boilerplate in every joint venture agreement written (it keeps the status of the JV participants that of co-venturers, not partners). SUF had no legal requirement to contact any possible heirs but only people who had recorded their interests in the mineral rights in the accepted legal fashion. He stated that SUF and Randgold had not been able to find any mineral rights registrations in existence at the time for the Marsfontein property, so a mining license application for the Marsfontein property fell under the Section 17 rules, which SUF and Randgold adhered to. SUF has reviewed the original owner's estate papers and found no mention whatever of mineral rights for Marsfontein, and Lee said they think that may be because the rights were sold by the original owner before his death and thus not passed to anyone. In no case has SUF found any recordings of rights since the death of the original owner. There are statutes of limitations rules that last no longer than the mid-1950s in this case, as well. IMPORTANT: I asked specifically if any of the other parcels that make up the Klipspringer deposit were at risk of similar problems, as per Infoman's closing comment. Lee said that all the other parcels had registered owners for the mineral rights, that SUF negotiated with all of them and came to agreement with every group. This means that none of the other parcels are Section 17 parcels. ((Obviously, we here on the thread can consider that some of those groups may regret their sale of the rights now that SUF has found diamonds, but that doesn't necessarily give them reason for action against SUF.)) Lee also told me that none of the parties involved want this legal fooferaw to last long. He stated unequivocally that negotiations are ongoing between SUF, Randgold, NGS Minerals and DeBeers as we speak, and a settlement could be reached any day now, although probably not until next week. Obviously, that may not occur as planned, but it is clearly SUF's desire. ***************** The following remarks are MY conclusions, not Lee's or SUF's, so please keep them separate from your reading of the above comments. I realize that both sides in this dispute have their own views on each point and their own axes to grind when talking to someone like me. I have spoken only to SUF and not to any heirs. Nonetheless, I must say that my investment-related experience with SUF to date shows them to be good businesspeople in both senses of the word. Further, my knowledge of the legal rules that govern public communications with shareholders leads me to believe that Lee, as a SUF spokesman, has a legal requirement to state public information that is truthful by reasonable, objective standards. (That doesn't mean he will, of course, but in this case I believe he knew of and conformed to these rules.) The heirs have no such requirement but only must avoid defamation or forms of tortious actions. Lee was extremely forthcoming and thorough in his discussion. He answered every one of my questions with consistency and apparent honesty. At this point I feel more confident in SUF's view of things than in the heirs' view. I very much hope that the parties to this dispute can resolve it quickly. If the heirs deserve compensation, they should get it. However, the actions of the heirs to date don't appear to have as much credibility as those of SUF and Randgold. If Infoman made his/her comments on 4/20 knowing them to be false or in order to stir up discord between SUF and the other groups with whom SUF has negotiated Klipspringer agreements in good faith or between SUF and its shareholders, then he/she could be liable on the basis of tortious conduct and should be more cautious in posting here. On a personal level I myself do not appreciate losing sleep on what appears to be a deliberate attempt by Infoman to cause harm to my investment position and that of other investors in order to push SUF in a direction it should not have had to go and perhaps to Infoman's personal benefit. I am going to read any heir-related post to this forum with great care. Steve Baker