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: Lorne who wrote (17491)	4/3/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: Rocket Red	Respond to of 26850

Lorne Aber has brought alot of new people on board to get there mine underway with the right people and may not have read all the fine print in the Winspear Deal. VP was fired for this Mistake.

To: Lorne who wrote (17491)	4/3/1999 1:25:00 AM
From: Walt	Respond to of 26850

Lorne, you would be surprised at some of the things that go on. I've seen companies miss deadlines, ignore option agreements , not know what was in agreements etc et al. Heres a true story. Pine point mine went into production and had been mining for a few years when someone wrote a query to the Northern Miner."They had heard about Pine Point and had some old stock in a company, now defunct, that twenty years befor had some proprty in the area.They wondered if the shares were worth anything." Turns out that property had been optioned to Pine Point and Pine Point owed a royalty to the defunct company. The shareholders all got together and resurrected the old company and got a buy out from Pine Point. So if you have any old shares in a company that could have stopped trading years ago, keep the shares just in case.One of the bars in town used old share certifgates for decoration and had too pull down a few old certifigates that suddenly became worth something. regards Walt:)

To: Lorne who wrote (17491)	4/3/1999 1:41:00 AM
From: Gord Bolton	Respond to of 26850

Lorne, life is about making choices. Sometimes you just can't have everything that you want. If you read ABER's Prospectus from May of 1998 to raise cash it becomes very clear. Snap Lake was a dirty word to them and they never mentioned it. Aber's cash was raised for Diavik at $14.50 a share. Please don't make me repeat myself. It tells the whole story. Winspear announced the bulk sample results from Snap Lake in June of 1998 and Aber wanted back in. Did they ammend their prospectus as their share price dropped to $7.00 or less? I guess not. Let me tell you another story. In about 1991, Canada had an Immigrant Investor Program Happening. Many applied to be an immigrant and investor and many companies applied for financing. Party "A" applied to be an investor. Company B applied for finacing. "A" was told he would be investing in a shopping Mall but his money ended up in Company B. Company B knew nothing about "A" or what he had been told. They were simply applying for financing through the program. "A" sued everyone in site and tied up Company B for nearly 10 years. Isn't it interesting that Aber is talking about disclosure problems? Winspear tried to accomadate Aber and offered them a Cash and share buyout that would have complied with Aber's disclosure problems but Aber would not take it. Is it not obvious to you that Aber wanted Winspear to carry them through the program and help them out with their problems. Aber has no case against Winspear and have presented no case. If Aber shareholders are displeased with the actions of the Aber board they have to formally do something within time limits or eat it. The Aber board is responsible to it's shareholders. The Aber action against Winspear will simply eat up the time that shareholders have to take action and deflect attention away from internal criticism. This is a tactic. If the shareholders all think that Winspear has done something wrong here they will shift their focus from asking if the Aber board screwed up in terms of protecting shareholder value. Boards are liable to their shareholders. Now there is no doubt that Aber's board was caught between a rock and a hard place and I have no comment on what could be done after the fact. The mistake was made in their evaluation of Snap Lake in 1998 and carried through in the wording of the prospectus. It is simply unfortunate that they did not immediately ammend the prospectus last spring on the mini-bulk results. The drop in the market price of shares made them reluctant to do that.