fin review article, page-5

Thanks newB

I too had not read the article, however if ‘We understand that competing interest petered out at near 25¢ a pop.’ Is mere media speculation, or sourced from reliable members of the mining fraternity, Mr Sutherland & board are now in deep, deep trouble. It is to be assumed that if proposals were made, and not released for market consideration to shareholders prior to MMK, GS can postulate all he wishes about ‘being only one bidder’, however he has an interest to his shareholders to consider proposals as they are made available, including public disclosure.

I do recall one of the final announcements preceding the expectations of completing the deal, stipulated that there had been no other offers.

If so much as one of these ‘phantom’ bidders emerges, and suggests that they were in discussions with GS & board, prior to, or during the MMK SIA, I would suggest shareholders commence looking at ASIC rulings regarding market sensitivity and common disclosure (under the RG or Regulatory Guides), and the contact details for ASIC.
If GS & board now wish to save face, and themselves shareholder backlash, I would think, and hope one of the previously mentioned options or alternatives at this point is to consider recourse through ASIC. If they don’t, I’m pretty sure savvy shareholders will.

From recollection, ASIC (through the ASX) can also request details confirming or substantiating market speculation. If they AFR are game to write it, they should be game to announce it also!

I think the lesson to be learnt here Gary (as a hypothetical entity, and not as a true or real individual), is don’t be greedy and don’t conceal market sensitive information from shareholders, cause guess what, you get caught eventually. I have heard Hedge Funds have pretty deep pockets to, and don’t like being kept in the dark.