re: ** fmg legal action ** capman all i'm saying is that if there was a pre emptive rights agreement with caz and it appears there isn't, it would only relate to having a pre-emptive right to the tenement ahead of any other party in the event caz wanted to sell the tenement or reduce their exposure below 100%. So caz would have had to offer the 14% of shovelanna to fmg on agreed terms ahead of any offer being made to a 3rd party such as ech. if by chance there was a pre emptive rights agreement, i would assume it is ech who have a problem.
its only my interpretation of what a pre-emptive right is.
read t4p's post coz it seems a pretty accurate assessment.
cheers.
re: ** fmg legal action ** capman all i'm saying is that if...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 1 more message in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
