serious buy volume 500,000 @21c, page-11

I believe the company do owe remaining shareholders.

Why ?
My view/argument is that at the time the takeover was in full swing, our trusty directors announced they intend to retain their holdings, this DIRECTLY influenced my decision to hold. Taking the logical view that if the directors intended to hold they must see stronger future value.

Then surprise, surprise the directors recently called upon their escape clause (which I had no knowledge of) to receive the same offer, so I believe this should now be extended to remaining holders, where is the fairness in that? Directors held far more shares than us, as such where is the equality in them receiving .55 and us .22/.24 ?

Is the company fundamentally different to when the original take over was made, as in proven ounces, and expected future production levels, future earnings ?

Those who accepted the first offer, and down playing the potential offer to match previously offered sounds to me of a sour grapes.

It would be super to escape this goldie, with a offer, hopefully equal to the previous offer or above .40.

So legally do we stand a chance, and if we were to pay a independent valuer, who much would this cost? I hold 25,000 shares. If a independent valuer was able to conclude a fair offer at .30 rather than a hypathetical .22-.24 offer from GDO, that makes it worthwhile for me.

Anyone else hold 25,000 plus shares? If there are enough of us it could be most worthwhile!!!

I was shafted years ago, when they reduced our holdings to 1 for every 5 or so shares held, so I did hold around 130,000 shares.

Have we really any legal leg to stand on in the event of a sub .55 offer ??