Pulpcutter another key fact is that with the [2021]WASC 459(S)...

First 3 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Petersburggray

337 Posts.

144

16/03/22

05:01

Post #: 60213518
Share

Originally posted by PulpCutter: ↑

Yup.

The judge ruled that BOTH the 2017 HOA and the 2017 BTS triggered SGI's ROFR. That's the unavoidable crux right there, no matter how much Vango shareholders try to sing and dance their way around it.

It's all straightforward from there. SGI has a 50% earn-in on any tenement.

Further, Vango has to come up with the matching funds. If they don't, SGI merely has to match whatever Vango CAN come up with, to earn 50% legal ownership of any tenement.

Given that Vango had less than $400k in the bank, as of last financials, that prospect should be seriously-considered by any remaining Vango bagholders. Even if Bruce's farmstand has a good year (sarc), Superior has $23.8 million US in the bank, churned out $8.5 million US in operating cash flow last quarter, and that was at $1787 US average gold price.

RockShell et al need to think about the LOWER bound on that capex per tenement. As in, there IS none, as long as its 50% of the total. LOL.

Expand

Pulpcutter another key fact is that with the [2021]WASC 459(S) decision Superiors HOA rights of first refusal over all plutonic dome/ marymia tenements are now and perpetually going forward enforced by mandatory orders of the western australia supreme court. No wiggle room Vango. Vango must come to terms with its master, Superior.

Last edited by Petersburggray: 16/03/22

VAN Price at posting: 3.4¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply