Including this bit:
"The February 2018 agreement to buy 28 hectares included conditions that if Stonehill was unable to extinguish the covenants then Synlait could choose to take possession without any obligation to pay interest, cancel the deal, or settle the purchase, "without prejudice to its rights, including as to compensation"."
Sounds like a deal will be sorted out with the original land owner paying some noise tax to the affected neighbour. Well...that's what common sense would suggest anyway but as we see with the current trade negotiations between the Chinese and American's common sense isn't always in abundant supply.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
I still think this company will be great one day. I have sold out at $10.85 a few weeks ago for HGH. I do think at this point in time SML looks like a longterm hold.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
What a cock up. One would have thought they could have found a site without covenants on it somewhere ? Why take the risk ? I wonder if it was a lot cheaper because of the covenants ?
Disc: Out a wee while ago, nice gain, could have been better.
Bit of a mess yes, but what you would have done if you were a Board member and responsible for the company's progress?
You, took legal advice and proceeded accordingly. Other party takes offence and brings action. Other party is recalcitrant and rejects any out of court settlement. In the meantime significant supply contracts are at risk but High Court rules in your favour and so you commence construction. Worth the risk? All depends on the value of the contracts and surety of the sale contract with yet a different party that you entered into?
Even now, the company still has other avenues to follow so that the factory can go to completion. Gains from supply contracts can outweigh follow on cost to resolve. Is this a valid business decision or stupidity or just absolutely ridiculous?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Beagle
Bookmarks