Paladin - vom Explorer zum Produzenten (Seite 577)
eröffnet am 05.03.07 11:07:16 von
neuester Beitrag 02.05.24 17:00:31 von
neuester Beitrag 02.05.24 17:00:31 von
Beiträge: 6.670
ID: 1.116.285
ID: 1.116.285
Aufrufe heute: 9
Gesamt: 686.953
Gesamt: 686.953
Aktive User: 0
ISIN: AU000000PDN8 · WKN: 890889
9,9800
EUR
-3,32 %
-0,3425 EUR
Letzter Kurs 22:59:58 Lang & Schwarz
Neuigkeiten
11.01.24 · GOLDINVEST.de Anzeige |
10.01.24 · wallstreetONLINE NewsUpdate |
10.01.24 · wallstreetONLINE Redaktion |
13.11.23 · Der Finanzinvestor |
Werte aus der Branche Rohstoffe
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 0,8100 | +11,11 | |
| 0,8000 | +11,11 | |
| 2,0800 | +10,05 | |
| 10,770 | +9,50 | |
| 200,00 | +8,11 |
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 10,520 | -12,33 | |
| 0,9860 | -12,74 | |
| 0,6000 | -18,37 | |
| 0,6601 | -26,22 | |
| 46,43 | -98,01 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.121.455 von dgni am 05.03.07 11:07:16http://news.orf.at/?href=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.orf.at%2Fticker%2…
lg
lg
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.121.455 von dgni am 05.03.07 11:07:16was allgemeines zur thematik energie und afrika....:
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/3691802/
lg
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/3691802/
lg
Uranium Juniors and Majors: A Symbiotic Relationship
By Katherine Young, Resourcex.com
Fears about peak oil, and the concept of uranium as a cleaner energy source have coupled in the industry’s collective imagination and forced the price of uranium to triple in the last year. On the supply side experts are alerting the public of shortages and many are saying that the uranium price will continue to climb as a result. With bio-energy solutions seen as being far-off in the future, uranium is being touted as nothing less than the solution to world’s energy and greenhouse gas problems.
Consequently, the juniors are aggressively exploring for the next uranium ore body. But then comes the rub. As it decays, uranium emits radiation. And for that reason uranium mining is subject to the most stringent regulations of any mining industry. The licensing process is lengthy and expensive and uranium production regulations make production prohibitive to juniors. So what becomes of a junior uranium company once it has a significant ore body? Conversely, how does a major like Cameco Corp. acquire more valuable uranium to meet growing demand, and remain the industry leader it has been?
Think of the alligator who opens it’s devastating jaws to allow tiny birds to pick food from the its teeth. The birds get a meal, the alligator capitalizes on what the birds offer--clean teeth. The two coexist peacefully. It’s similar with juniors and majors. They offer each other what neither could do as effectively on their own.
Cameco Corporation located in Saskatchewan is the world’s largest uranium producer. During it’s May 1, 2007 First Quarter Results conference call, the company outlined its exploration strategy, which directly involves using the expertise of junior companies. During the call Cameco management said that Cameco has already entered into alliances and joint ventures with exploration companies in Gabon in western Africa and in Nunavut.
When the situation is right, they say, they’re ready for more partnerships. Jerry Grandey, President and CEO of Cameco Corporation had this to say about Cameco’s planned exploration strategy, “We will be ready when appropriate, to consider joint ventures, alliances and acquisitions, consistent with our production goals and overall vision.”
Arrangements with juniors is clearly a part of Cameco’s strategy. Lyle Krahn of Cameco Corporation explained why in an interview, “we’re a large company but we can’t do all of the exploring around the world. As juniors explore and discover uranium it will help meet the growing demand for nuclear power around the world.”
A case in point is a non-binding memorandum of understanding that Cameco entered into in June of 2006 to acquire 19.5% of UNOR, formerly Hornby Bay Exploration Ltd. thereby creating a strategic alliance with them. UNOR has 226 mineral claims in Nunavut on the Hornby Basin, which has similar geological features to the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan.
Jerry Grandey, said about the alliance, “This relationship leverages the expertise of the junior uranium exploration company that has both a perspective land package with similar geologic characteristics to the Athabascin Basin and a solid technical team.” Singing the praises of the junior, Cameco is explicit about its interest in what the juniors are doing. However, it is a fact that juniors have to be interested in what the majors like Cameco have to offer as well, because they cannot carry their resources through to production on their own.
In Canada, the world’s largest producer of uranium, the permits required for exploration are obtained at the provincial level of government. There is considerable variation from one province or territory to the next, with some provinces being considered more or less ‘anti-nuclear’ than others.
However, because uranium production presents environmental and health and safety issues, the public interest is affected and federal regulations are called into play. The federal licensing process, which is governed by the Canadian Nuclear Control Act and managed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), is arduous to say the least.
In an interview with Fred Ashley, Project Officer at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, he said that the licensing process can take roughly five years. Ashley explained why: “It’s obtaining all of the site-specific information that’s required to do the environmental assessment. It’s going through all the public information processes that are required for the environmental assessment.” The assessment is both comprehensive and detailed. Considerations such as meterology, seismology, archaeology, paleontology, vegetation, wildlife, soils, and surface water are all significant. And, as Fred Ashley pointed out, the onus is on the company to provide the time-consuming required studies.
If the time and red tape isn’t enough to put a junior company off, Fred Ashley explained the costs involved. “You’re into several million dollars for sure. It is a major undertaking. And that’s why a strictly junior company is usually not in the league to carry forward a [uranium] mining operation…Usually the people involved in a junior exploration aren’t operators. There’s a lot of different experience and requirements to be an operator vs. an exploration group. So if [a junior] did identify a valuable ore body we think in most cases they’d be looking at partnering or some kind of arrangement with someone who is an operator.” Ashley added that even with an environmental assessment in place, a uranium producer still has to meet rigorous controls for uranium production.
When asked if it is easier to obtain permits and licenses in other parts of the world, Fred Ashley said, “the general standards still apply because there’s a lot of consensus between the different countries through the International Atomic Energy Agency…So different countries will at least have a certain level of specific controls.” So regardless of where in the world the junior is exploring, operating is a different game altogether and juniors instead of moving to production on their own, like with other minerals, need to position themselves to be noticed by the Camecos of the world.
Cameco President Jerry Bradley speaking to Terence Ortsland in a conference call outlined Cameco’s current orientation toward the junior explorers, “Right now Cameco’s been in kind of a watch mode because it takes quite a while to find a significant ore body.”
As far as what they look for, Lyle Krahn media relations at Cameco said, “It’s very simple. We look for a quality exploration team with a quality deposit.” You can bet that juniors feel the power of Cameco’s watchful gaze because once they have an ore body, interest from a major, after all, is their only option.
Katherine Young writes for Resourcex Investor, an internationally distributed newsletter specializing in identifying as-yet-undiscovered resource companies representing the best in their class. For more information, visit the website www.resourcexinvestor.com.
lg
By Katherine Young, Resourcex.com
Fears about peak oil, and the concept of uranium as a cleaner energy source have coupled in the industry’s collective imagination and forced the price of uranium to triple in the last year. On the supply side experts are alerting the public of shortages and many are saying that the uranium price will continue to climb as a result. With bio-energy solutions seen as being far-off in the future, uranium is being touted as nothing less than the solution to world’s energy and greenhouse gas problems.
Consequently, the juniors are aggressively exploring for the next uranium ore body. But then comes the rub. As it decays, uranium emits radiation. And for that reason uranium mining is subject to the most stringent regulations of any mining industry. The licensing process is lengthy and expensive and uranium production regulations make production prohibitive to juniors. So what becomes of a junior uranium company once it has a significant ore body? Conversely, how does a major like Cameco Corp. acquire more valuable uranium to meet growing demand, and remain the industry leader it has been?
Think of the alligator who opens it’s devastating jaws to allow tiny birds to pick food from the its teeth. The birds get a meal, the alligator capitalizes on what the birds offer--clean teeth. The two coexist peacefully. It’s similar with juniors and majors. They offer each other what neither could do as effectively on their own.
Cameco Corporation located in Saskatchewan is the world’s largest uranium producer. During it’s May 1, 2007 First Quarter Results conference call, the company outlined its exploration strategy, which directly involves using the expertise of junior companies. During the call Cameco management said that Cameco has already entered into alliances and joint ventures with exploration companies in Gabon in western Africa and in Nunavut.
When the situation is right, they say, they’re ready for more partnerships. Jerry Grandey, President and CEO of Cameco Corporation had this to say about Cameco’s planned exploration strategy, “We will be ready when appropriate, to consider joint ventures, alliances and acquisitions, consistent with our production goals and overall vision.”
Arrangements with juniors is clearly a part of Cameco’s strategy. Lyle Krahn of Cameco Corporation explained why in an interview, “we’re a large company but we can’t do all of the exploring around the world. As juniors explore and discover uranium it will help meet the growing demand for nuclear power around the world.”
A case in point is a non-binding memorandum of understanding that Cameco entered into in June of 2006 to acquire 19.5% of UNOR, formerly Hornby Bay Exploration Ltd. thereby creating a strategic alliance with them. UNOR has 226 mineral claims in Nunavut on the Hornby Basin, which has similar geological features to the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan.
Jerry Grandey, said about the alliance, “This relationship leverages the expertise of the junior uranium exploration company that has both a perspective land package with similar geologic characteristics to the Athabascin Basin and a solid technical team.” Singing the praises of the junior, Cameco is explicit about its interest in what the juniors are doing. However, it is a fact that juniors have to be interested in what the majors like Cameco have to offer as well, because they cannot carry their resources through to production on their own.
In Canada, the world’s largest producer of uranium, the permits required for exploration are obtained at the provincial level of government. There is considerable variation from one province or territory to the next, with some provinces being considered more or less ‘anti-nuclear’ than others.
However, because uranium production presents environmental and health and safety issues, the public interest is affected and federal regulations are called into play. The federal licensing process, which is governed by the Canadian Nuclear Control Act and managed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), is arduous to say the least.
In an interview with Fred Ashley, Project Officer at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, he said that the licensing process can take roughly five years. Ashley explained why: “It’s obtaining all of the site-specific information that’s required to do the environmental assessment. It’s going through all the public information processes that are required for the environmental assessment.” The assessment is both comprehensive and detailed. Considerations such as meterology, seismology, archaeology, paleontology, vegetation, wildlife, soils, and surface water are all significant. And, as Fred Ashley pointed out, the onus is on the company to provide the time-consuming required studies.
If the time and red tape isn’t enough to put a junior company off, Fred Ashley explained the costs involved. “You’re into several million dollars for sure. It is a major undertaking. And that’s why a strictly junior company is usually not in the league to carry forward a [uranium] mining operation…Usually the people involved in a junior exploration aren’t operators. There’s a lot of different experience and requirements to be an operator vs. an exploration group. So if [a junior] did identify a valuable ore body we think in most cases they’d be looking at partnering or some kind of arrangement with someone who is an operator.” Ashley added that even with an environmental assessment in place, a uranium producer still has to meet rigorous controls for uranium production.
When asked if it is easier to obtain permits and licenses in other parts of the world, Fred Ashley said, “the general standards still apply because there’s a lot of consensus between the different countries through the International Atomic Energy Agency…So different countries will at least have a certain level of specific controls.” So regardless of where in the world the junior is exploring, operating is a different game altogether and juniors instead of moving to production on their own, like with other minerals, need to position themselves to be noticed by the Camecos of the world.
Cameco President Jerry Bradley speaking to Terence Ortsland in a conference call outlined Cameco’s current orientation toward the junior explorers, “Right now Cameco’s been in kind of a watch mode because it takes quite a while to find a significant ore body.”
As far as what they look for, Lyle Krahn media relations at Cameco said, “It’s very simple. We look for a quality exploration team with a quality deposit.” You can bet that juniors feel the power of Cameco’s watchful gaze because once they have an ore body, interest from a major, after all, is their only option.
Katherine Young writes for Resourcex Investor, an internationally distributed newsletter specializing in identifying as-yet-undiscovered resource companies representing the best in their class. For more information, visit the website www.resourcexinvestor.com.
lg
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 29.148.639 von Destrutto am 05.05.07 14:56:53Wer weiss, was die nächsten Monate bringen werden. Sowohl bei SXR als auch bei PDN ist die Phanatasie sicher noch nicht ausgereizt.
Von der Web site SXR
sxr Uranium One Inc. is engaged in the exploration and development of uranium and gold resource properties in South Africa, Australia and Canada and is actively pursuing growth opportunities in the western United States. The Corporation's principal assets are the Dominion Uranium Project in South Africa, the Honeymoon Uranium Project in Australia and, through its majority-owned subsidiary Aflease Gold Limited, the Modder East Gold Project in South Africa. Through a joint venture with Pitchstone Exploration Ltd., the Corporation is also engaged in the acquisition and development of uranium exploration properties in the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan, Canada. Uranium One is listed on the Toronto and Johannesburg stock exchanges (trading symbol "SXR").
http://www.uranium1.com/
SXR Uranium One - Target $21
AMP selected SXR as part of the uranium basket of uranium stocks because of the production in the near term and because its aggressive management - exploration coupled with acquisitions - seeking to build a major "player" in the sector.
Financial Post reports on the upgrade from Cannacord;
" ...the world's second-largest uranium- focused company by market capitalization, after Cameco Comapny expects production to rise from 1.8 M pounds this year to nearly 20 M pounds by 2012.
Company balance sheet - Assets $390 M U.S., long term debt $109 U.S. Sales are based on the commodity spot price
Where is our AMP Portfolio uranium basket headed? The list of uranium producers or near term producers like Denison, SXR and Paladin are volatile. It is nerve racking, but that volatility is the price we pay for outperforming the market.
Over the past year and over the next two to three years we will continue to see a long tem continual rise in the commodity and in the portfolio - punctuated by the turns in the market. Patience . Patience. Our core belief is that we are investing in a sector that is in a long term uptrend. We won't withdraw until we see the trend broken.
http://www.amprogram.com/
hang loose
dgni
Von der Web site SXR
sxr Uranium One Inc. is engaged in the exploration and development of uranium and gold resource properties in South Africa, Australia and Canada and is actively pursuing growth opportunities in the western United States. The Corporation's principal assets are the Dominion Uranium Project in South Africa, the Honeymoon Uranium Project in Australia and, through its majority-owned subsidiary Aflease Gold Limited, the Modder East Gold Project in South Africa. Through a joint venture with Pitchstone Exploration Ltd., the Corporation is also engaged in the acquisition and development of uranium exploration properties in the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan, Canada. Uranium One is listed on the Toronto and Johannesburg stock exchanges (trading symbol "SXR").
http://www.uranium1.com/
SXR Uranium One - Target $21
AMP selected SXR as part of the uranium basket of uranium stocks because of the production in the near term and because its aggressive management - exploration coupled with acquisitions - seeking to build a major "player" in the sector.
Financial Post reports on the upgrade from Cannacord;
" ...the world's second-largest uranium- focused company by market capitalization, after Cameco Comapny expects production to rise from 1.8 M pounds this year to nearly 20 M pounds by 2012.
Company balance sheet - Assets $390 M U.S., long term debt $109 U.S. Sales are based on the commodity spot price
Where is our AMP Portfolio uranium basket headed? The list of uranium producers or near term producers like Denison, SXR and Paladin are volatile. It is nerve racking, but that volatility is the price we pay for outperforming the market.
Over the past year and over the next two to three years we will continue to see a long tem continual rise in the commodity and in the portfolio - punctuated by the turns in the market. Patience . Patience. Our core belief is that we are investing in a sector that is in a long term uptrend. We won't withdraw until we see the trend broken.
http://www.amprogram.com/
hang loose
dgni Trading Spotlight
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 29.148.044 von dgni am 05.05.07 12:37:54Guten Tag dgni ,
Trotzdem vielen Dank für die Antwort.
Nur etwas ungewöhnlich ist das hohe KGV von SXR Uranium schon.
Würde man bei PDN gleiche Maßstäbe zugrunde legen,hätten wir einen fast dreimal so hohen Kurs.
Gruß Destrutto
Trotzdem vielen Dank für die Antwort.
Nur etwas ungewöhnlich ist das hohe KGV von SXR Uranium schon.
Würde man bei PDN gleiche Maßstäbe zugrunde legen,hätten wir einen fast dreimal so hohen Kurs.
Gruß Destrutto
5. Mai 2007: All-Time Record Uranium Spot Price: US$120/Pound
Buyers Fail to Attract Sellers despite Firm Bids
Quelle: http://www.stockinterview.com/News/05052007/Record-Uranium-S…
Buyers Fail to Attract Sellers despite Firm Bids
Quelle: http://www.stockinterview.com/News/05052007/Record-Uranium-S…
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 29.144.020 von Destrutto am 04.05.07 21:37:11Guten Tag Destrutto, da wirst Du wohl oder übel die Aktionäre fragen müssen. Ich kann es Dir nicht sagen. Aber vielleicht ist ja jemand im Board dazu in der Lage.
Aber hier habe ich einen interessanten Artikel - er ist schon ein paar Tage alt - aber im Rückblick betrachtet, wirft er ein gutes Bild auf die derzeitige Situation mit Areva und Summit.
French nuke firm's stabilising Summit stake may actually be a critical mass
* Snapping up 10.46 per cent of the miner is unlikely to protect Areva's position, writes ,b>Bryan Frith
* May 01, 2007
AREVA claims its recent action in snapping up 10.46 per cent of uranium hopeful and takeover target Summit Resources was designed to "protect its position".
But it's difficult to see how that is the case. If anything it has complicated matters for the French nuclear group.
Until recently, Summit was strenuously resisting an unwelcome scrip bid from fellow uranium hopeful Paladin Resources (the two companies are partners in the Valhalla-Skal uranium project at Mt Isa, via a joint venture), and appeared to have succeeded by entering agreements to form a strategic alliance with Areva, under which the French group would acquire up to 18 per cent of Summit in return for the right to market at least two-thirds of any uranium produced by the Australian company. Areva would also receive pre-emptive rights over the future sale of Summit's interest in any tenements in Australia.
The proposed alliance came at an awkward time for Paladin, as only days earlier it had declared its offer unconditional, despite having attracted acceptances of less than 1 per cent to Summit. The target directors recommended the Areva alliance, subject to shareholder and FIRB approval.
Areva declared that it was not interested in acquiring Summit, but had the alliance gone ahead it would have created a poison pill making Summit a less attractive takeover proposition.
But Paladin responded by boosting its $1.2 billion scrip offer, and Summit surprised by reversing its stance and recommending the higher offer. Summit's capitulation was made in the knowledge that hedge funds held at least 20 per cent of the capital and intended to accept the higher offer, whatever stance the board took.
Summit also announced that the Areva proposal would no longer be put to shareholders "and will therefore not proceed".
It was then that Areva acquired the blocking stake, for $125 million, or $6.10 a share. The French group also insisted it had a binding contract with Summit, which it intended to enforce, and that Summit was bound to proceed with the shareholders' meeting.
It's clear that the Summit recommendation surprised Paladin. At the time it announced the higher offer it was making conciliatory remarks in relation to Areva. Paladin said then that the involvement of Areva was a positive for Paladin as a joint venture partner at Mt Isa. "Accordingly, Paladin will be voting its shares in favour of the Areva transaction," Paladin declared.
Now that appears to be a "truth in takeovers" statement, to which Paladin can be held, and it contained no qualifications.
But that was then, and this is now. Backed by the target board recommendation, Paladin has now moved to 58 per cent majority ownership of Summit, and can therefore exert outright control.
Paladin has now told Summit (which has passed it on to Areva) that if the shareholder meeting were held it would vote against the Areva transaction, which would mean there would be little point in calling the meeting. Summit called off the shareholder meeting the day after Paladin made its new position known to the target.
But Areva considers that Paladin is bound by its earlier, unqualified commitment to vote in favour of the Areva transaction (made when it held only 0.63 per cent of Summit).
Paladin has sought to justify its changed stance on the grounds that the Summit board recommendation of the higher offer in preference to the Areva deal, and that Paladin was then expected to move to outright ownership (foiled by Areva's blocking stake), was a material change of circumstances.
ASIC's view is that to justify departing from a truth in takeovers commitment, a change of circumstances would have to be unforeseeable, and it would be difficult for Paladin to argue that the recommendation was unforeseeable. After all, Paladin lifted its bid in an attempt to obtain a recommendation.
Moreover, yesterday Summit said that in its negotiations with Areva it was apparent to both companies that the Summit board might end up recommending an increased offer from Paladin.
That was one of the reasons Summit agreed that Areva could terminate the agreement and receive a $2.5 million break fee if Summit withdrew its recommendation of the alliance, or recommended a higher offer. The break fee was said to represent Areva's reasonable opportunity costs of pursuing the alliance, or not pursuing alternatives.
It's existence weakens Areva's argument of a binding contract.
But if the French group wants to persist, the alternatives would appear to be to go to court to seek specific performance of its contract with Summit (on the grounds that the alliance agreement was not in relation to a takeover bid, and therefore could be heard by the court) or to refer the matter to the Takeovers Panel to seek an order that the meeting be held and Paladin held to its original commitment to vote in favour.
The panel is, of course, under a cloud, after a majority full Federal Court cast doubt on its constitutional validity. The court ruled that the panel is definitely barred from making unacceptable declarations which are based on a finding of a breach of the law. It also suggested the panel's power to make declarations based on a breach of the spirit of the law may be invalid, but didn't rule on it.
But the court did rule that declarations based on a breach of the spirit would be invalid if they took into account a breach of the takeover provisions, and it thought there would be few instances where that would not be the case. A High Court challenge is expected.
Meantime, the panel will soldier on, provided it can find parties prepared to make a reference, given the uncertainty of its status.
It should be noted that the "truth in takeovers" policy does not rely on any of the takeover provisions for enforcement. Instead it is based on the prohibitions against false or misleading statements and misleading and deceptive conduct, which are in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act.
Last night the panel said that in future it would only consider applications based on section 657A(2)(a) - breaches of the spirit rather than of the black letter law - and it was confident that the "vast majority" of takeover disputes would be able to be framed in those terms.
Of course, in Summit's case, only Paladin is making an offer.
Areva is involved in a proposal that, while not necessarily stopping Paladin from gaining control, would certainly prevent it from its primary aim of gaining 100 per cent full ownership. In fact, were it not that shareholder approval was mooted, it could have smacked of frustrating action designed to defeat a takeover.
Summit pointed out yesterday that Areva's purchase of the 10.46 per cent blocking stake meant that it would, in any case, no longer be possible to seek shareholder approval of the issues of shares to Areva in the manner contemplated by the agreements.
That's because Areva was to acquire 18 per cent in two tranches, but as it now owns more than 10 per cent that would contravene the prohibition on parties obtaining more than 20 per cent of the capital without first making a takeover bid.
Summit conceded that it would be open to shareholders to approve Areva acquiring more than 20 per cent and waive their right to receive a bid. But Summit said that was never in contemplation and would be fundamentally different to the original intention.
Summit was under no obligation to seek such shareholder approval and did not intend to.
So, as stated at the outset, the purchase of the stake may have complicated, rather than protected, Areva's position.
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21650246-1694…
hang loose
dgni
Aber hier habe ich einen interessanten Artikel - er ist schon ein paar Tage alt - aber im Rückblick betrachtet, wirft er ein gutes Bild auf die derzeitige Situation mit Areva und Summit.
French nuke firm's stabilising Summit stake may actually be a critical mass
* Snapping up 10.46 per cent of the miner is unlikely to protect Areva's position, writes ,b>Bryan Frith
* May 01, 2007
AREVA claims its recent action in snapping up 10.46 per cent of uranium hopeful and takeover target Summit Resources was designed to "protect its position".
But it's difficult to see how that is the case. If anything it has complicated matters for the French nuclear group.
Until recently, Summit was strenuously resisting an unwelcome scrip bid from fellow uranium hopeful Paladin Resources (the two companies are partners in the Valhalla-Skal uranium project at Mt Isa, via a joint venture), and appeared to have succeeded by entering agreements to form a strategic alliance with Areva, under which the French group would acquire up to 18 per cent of Summit in return for the right to market at least two-thirds of any uranium produced by the Australian company. Areva would also receive pre-emptive rights over the future sale of Summit's interest in any tenements in Australia.
The proposed alliance came at an awkward time for Paladin, as only days earlier it had declared its offer unconditional, despite having attracted acceptances of less than 1 per cent to Summit. The target directors recommended the Areva alliance, subject to shareholder and FIRB approval.
Areva declared that it was not interested in acquiring Summit, but had the alliance gone ahead it would have created a poison pill making Summit a less attractive takeover proposition.
But Paladin responded by boosting its $1.2 billion scrip offer, and Summit surprised by reversing its stance and recommending the higher offer. Summit's capitulation was made in the knowledge that hedge funds held at least 20 per cent of the capital and intended to accept the higher offer, whatever stance the board took.
Summit also announced that the Areva proposal would no longer be put to shareholders "and will therefore not proceed".
It was then that Areva acquired the blocking stake, for $125 million, or $6.10 a share. The French group also insisted it had a binding contract with Summit, which it intended to enforce, and that Summit was bound to proceed with the shareholders' meeting.
It's clear that the Summit recommendation surprised Paladin. At the time it announced the higher offer it was making conciliatory remarks in relation to Areva. Paladin said then that the involvement of Areva was a positive for Paladin as a joint venture partner at Mt Isa. "Accordingly, Paladin will be voting its shares in favour of the Areva transaction," Paladin declared.
Now that appears to be a "truth in takeovers" statement, to which Paladin can be held, and it contained no qualifications.
But that was then, and this is now. Backed by the target board recommendation, Paladin has now moved to 58 per cent majority ownership of Summit, and can therefore exert outright control.
Paladin has now told Summit (which has passed it on to Areva) that if the shareholder meeting were held it would vote against the Areva transaction, which would mean there would be little point in calling the meeting. Summit called off the shareholder meeting the day after Paladin made its new position known to the target.
But Areva considers that Paladin is bound by its earlier, unqualified commitment to vote in favour of the Areva transaction (made when it held only 0.63 per cent of Summit).
Paladin has sought to justify its changed stance on the grounds that the Summit board recommendation of the higher offer in preference to the Areva deal, and that Paladin was then expected to move to outright ownership (foiled by Areva's blocking stake), was a material change of circumstances.
ASIC's view is that to justify departing from a truth in takeovers commitment, a change of circumstances would have to be unforeseeable, and it would be difficult for Paladin to argue that the recommendation was unforeseeable. After all, Paladin lifted its bid in an attempt to obtain a recommendation.
Moreover, yesterday Summit said that in its negotiations with Areva it was apparent to both companies that the Summit board might end up recommending an increased offer from Paladin.
That was one of the reasons Summit agreed that Areva could terminate the agreement and receive a $2.5 million break fee if Summit withdrew its recommendation of the alliance, or recommended a higher offer. The break fee was said to represent Areva's reasonable opportunity costs of pursuing the alliance, or not pursuing alternatives.
It's existence weakens Areva's argument of a binding contract.
But if the French group wants to persist, the alternatives would appear to be to go to court to seek specific performance of its contract with Summit (on the grounds that the alliance agreement was not in relation to a takeover bid, and therefore could be heard by the court) or to refer the matter to the Takeovers Panel to seek an order that the meeting be held and Paladin held to its original commitment to vote in favour.
The panel is, of course, under a cloud, after a majority full Federal Court cast doubt on its constitutional validity. The court ruled that the panel is definitely barred from making unacceptable declarations which are based on a finding of a breach of the law. It also suggested the panel's power to make declarations based on a breach of the spirit of the law may be invalid, but didn't rule on it.
But the court did rule that declarations based on a breach of the spirit would be invalid if they took into account a breach of the takeover provisions, and it thought there would be few instances where that would not be the case. A High Court challenge is expected.
Meantime, the panel will soldier on, provided it can find parties prepared to make a reference, given the uncertainty of its status.
It should be noted that the "truth in takeovers" policy does not rely on any of the takeover provisions for enforcement. Instead it is based on the prohibitions against false or misleading statements and misleading and deceptive conduct, which are in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act.
Last night the panel said that in future it would only consider applications based on section 657A(2)(a) - breaches of the spirit rather than of the black letter law - and it was confident that the "vast majority" of takeover disputes would be able to be framed in those terms.
Of course, in Summit's case, only Paladin is making an offer.
Areva is involved in a proposal that, while not necessarily stopping Paladin from gaining control, would certainly prevent it from its primary aim of gaining 100 per cent full ownership. In fact, were it not that shareholder approval was mooted, it could have smacked of frustrating action designed to defeat a takeover.
Summit pointed out yesterday that Areva's purchase of the 10.46 per cent blocking stake meant that it would, in any case, no longer be possible to seek shareholder approval of the issues of shares to Areva in the manner contemplated by the agreements.
That's because Areva was to acquire 18 per cent in two tranches, but as it now owns more than 10 per cent that would contravene the prohibition on parties obtaining more than 20 per cent of the capital without first making a takeover bid.
Summit conceded that it would be open to shareholders to approve Areva acquiring more than 20 per cent and waive their right to receive a bid. But Summit said that was never in contemplation and would be fundamentally different to the original intention.
Summit was under no obligation to seek such shareholder approval and did not intend to.
So, as stated at the outset, the purchase of the stake may have complicated, rather than protected, Areva's position.
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21650246-1694…
hang loose
dgni
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 29.131.168 von dgni am 04.05.07 13:40:37Guten abend alle zusammen ,
kann mir mal jemand sagen warum SXR Uranium one mit einem KGV von 75 fast dreimal so hoch bewertet wird wie PDN KGV 27.
Schönes Wochenende
Destrutto
kann mir mal jemand sagen warum SXR Uranium one mit einem KGV von 75 fast dreimal so hoch bewertet wird wie PDN KGV 27.
Schönes Wochenende
Destrutto
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 29.130.702 von thielemannone am 04.05.07 13:10:21Na, man kann Dich doch aus der Reserve locken.
Nein, das mit Reefton ist nicht ins Herz gegangen. Ich bin, im Gegensatz zu manch einem, recht emotionslos, was die Werte angeht. Der Verlust auf der einen Seite wird durch Gewinne auf der anderen wettgemacht. Und ich kann Dir versichern, der Verlust bei Reefton hält sich im drei-stelligen €-Bereich. Also nicht der Rede wert. Aber wie ich sagte, als Warnwert immer hilfreich.
Mich als Experten zu bezeichnen würde ich mir nie erlauben, weil ich auch keiner bin. Da gibt es andere.
Was ich mache - und das verfolgst Du ja ganz genau - ist nichts anders, als Informationen zu sammeln, diese hier zur Verfügung stellen, meine Meinung und Interpretion zur Diskussion zu stellen.
Es gibt Teilnehmer hier im Board, die nehmen das an und diskutieren mit.
Und es gibt andere - dazu gehörst Du, die stänkern einfach nur rum.
hang loose
dgni
Nein, das mit Reefton ist nicht ins Herz gegangen. Ich bin, im Gegensatz zu manch einem, recht emotionslos, was die Werte angeht. Der Verlust auf der einen Seite wird durch Gewinne auf der anderen wettgemacht. Und ich kann Dir versichern, der Verlust bei Reefton hält sich im drei-stelligen €-Bereich. Also nicht der Rede wert. Aber wie ich sagte, als Warnwert immer hilfreich.
Mich als Experten zu bezeichnen würde ich mir nie erlauben, weil ich auch keiner bin. Da gibt es andere.
Was ich mache - und das verfolgst Du ja ganz genau - ist nichts anders, als Informationen zu sammeln, diese hier zur Verfügung stellen, meine Meinung und Interpretion zur Diskussion zu stellen.
Es gibt Teilnehmer hier im Board, die nehmen das an und diskutieren mit.
Und es gibt andere - dazu gehörst Du, die stänkern einfach nur rum.
hang loose
dgni 
Durchsuchen
10.01.24 · wallstreetONLINE NewsUpdate · Deep Yellow |
10.01.24 · wallstreetONLINE Redaktion · Deep Yellow |
13.11.23 · Der Finanzinvestor · Cameco |
