It's quite clear that most shareholders here are intelligent and reasonable people, who have been involved with other companies that represent shareholders in a diligent fashion. I've been involved in many takeovers on the ASX over the past 20 years or more, but NONE where an "Independent Valuation" was NEVER undertaken by the board for the benefit of all shareholders.
An independent valuation is a critical document for shareholders, allowing them to assess the merit of a proposed takeover, but EAR Shareholders weren't given one. Why?
This is unprecedented for me. And I'm wondering why the board would not do this for shareholders? Because the company (should) effectively belong to the shareholders. Most shareholders just want an honest and hard working board who represent them fairly.
I would like to know if Victor was introduced to EAR by someone from NST.
So the rule here, for all EAR shareholders, should be very simple, and apply to all circumstances.
You don't vote away your shares in a company until you have been provided with an "Independent Valuation", undertaken in a respectful, intelligent, and scientific way by a reputable company.
I'm assuming that most EAR shareholders would like to see an "Independent Valuation".
And I don't think under the circumstances, that it is an unreasonable request.
If the NST takeover does not succeed, then I agree with many shareholders that the EAR board should resign. Because in this current global gold mining environment, there are a thousand highly qualified teams of gold mining executives who could undertake successful exploration here, and build a very effective junior gold mining production company. In fact, at the moment, Australia is being flooded with applications from overseas companies wanted to buy and build a gold production company in Australia, and EAR would be in the box seat.
Some would contend that an NST takeover might even be the worst possible option for EAR in the current global gold environment.
Gw
Expand
