Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-14

Great analogy EastWest101, the "no shop" and "no talk" conditions should be outlawed, they are in fact an impediment to free and open negotiations.

It makes me think that the directors here may have something to hide, or that some backroom deal has secretly been done.

These probably did not happen, but the restrictions may give that impression to some, and it's not a good look for shareholders.

It also makes it look like the directors are really keen to sell out and move on, and have lost interest, especially as they want to accept a low ball offer that is not even for all cash - they must be desperate to move on to other projects, so it's probably a perfect time for SVM to come lurking in.

PRU would get this for 63+ cents all cash, but why would they bid if they are denied reasonable due diligence, would they consider the risk is therefore too great for them? Maybe.

SVM have already appointed a new manager to the project and announced it on the TSX.
I can't see why they would have done this unless they are 100% certain of winning the bid.
Surely before they made new appointments, they would have at least sounded out PRU.

This is all getting very confusing.

The directors here have caused all this chaos because they do not see themselves as mine developers, they want to sell the project, but in being so desperate, they've literally tied the hands of potential bidders like PRU by not giving them fair and equitable access to due diligence, and that to me is either desperate or crazy - time will tell which.

Gw