sharetrader
  1. #11231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Waitakere New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,083

    Default

    Balance the directors of NZO have no choice they have to make an offer to the receiver that they will beat any other offer or forget about it. They cannot stop the Receivers selling it any other way. The receivers make the decision not a shareholder like NZO. Instead they are telling their shareholders that they are honestly not expecting to get any money back from the sale of PRC. Any statement to the contrary could make them liable to damages. You bought a Dog admit it & get on with life.
    Possum The Cat

  2. #11232
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    1,981

    Default

    There is one thing that stands out in this discussion about NZO buying PIKE that all of you have failed to comment on. After placing PIKE into receivership the govt has stated it will not reissue the mining licence to NZO. So from that moment what is the point in believing that NZO can do anything about PIKE ownership??? What use is PIKE without the mining licence?
    digger

  3. #11233
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Christchurch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    308

    Default

    NOG has more say than what you think it was them as secured creditor that appointed the receiver. Power is in their hands.....

  4. #11234
    Guru Xerof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    The only 'power' they had was to appoint a Receiver of their choice. Bear in mind BNZ was also a secured creditor and could have beaten them to it. Not that it really mattered in the end.

    And digger I think you are right re mining license

  5. #11235
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Christchurch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerof View Post
    The only 'power' they had was to appoint a Receiver of their choice. Bear in mind BNZ was also a secured creditor and could have beaten them to it. Not that it really mattered in the end.
    It matters as the receiver is working for the secured creditor.

  6. #11236
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by POSSUM THE CAT View Post
    Balance the directors of NZO have no choice they have to make an offer to the receiver that they will beat any other offer or forget about it. They cannot stop the Receivers selling it any other way. The receivers make the decision not a shareholder like NZO. Instead they are telling their shareholders that they are honestly not expecting to get any money back from the sale of PRC. Any statement to the contrary could make them liable to damages. You bought a Dog admit it & get on with life.
    #1 - I did not buy into this dog, but share your sentiment about the dog!

    #2 - NZO appointed the receiver and as the only secured creditor left in Pike, can terminate the receivership. So they do not have to beat anyone to 'buy' the asset!

    #3 - The word 'honestly' does not equate to NZO directors.

    #4 - What damages are they liable for? The market has already effectively written Pike off already!

    #5 - Question remains - why the unseemly haste to get rid of Pike?

    #6 - 29 dead miners. They will continue to haunt this bunch of incompetent, unprofessional and cowardly directors for a while yet - Pike sold or not.

  7. #11237
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    perth, , Australia.
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger View Post
    There is one thing that stands out in this discussion about NZO buying PIKE that all of you have failed to comment on. After placing PIKE into receivership the govt has stated it will not reissue the mining licence to NZO. So from that moment what is the point in believing that NZO can do anything about PIKE ownership??? What use is PIKE without the mining licence?
    digger, why would it have to be reissued - could it not stay in the name of PRC?

    M

  8. #11238
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    5,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onthemoney View Post
    NOG has more say than what you think it was them as secured creditor that appointed the receiver. Power is in their hands.....
    My poiint exactly !

  9. #11239
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    5,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    #1 - I did not buy into this dog, but share your sentiment about the dog!

    #2 - NZO appointed the receiver and as the only secured creditor left in Pike, can terminate the receivership. So they do not have to beat anyone to 'buy' the asset!

    #3 - The word 'honestly' does not equate to NZO directors.

    #4 - What damages are they liable for? The market has already effectively written Pike off already!

    #5 - Question remains - why the unseemly haste to get rid of Pike?

    #6 - 29 dead miners. They will continue to haunt this bunch of incompetent, unprofessional and cowardly directors for a while yet - Pike sold or not.
    Balance I agree with all your 6 points. Spot on !

  10. #11240
    Member brucey09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    la paz, , Mexico.
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Snrs. Balance , Machine and Iceman. Correcto - why cant some person live in Australia telephone the top man Radford please.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •