Paladin - vom Explorer zum Produzenten (Seite 623)
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: 2
Gesamt: 686.988
Gesamt: 686.988
Aktive User: 0
ISIN: AU000000PDN8 · WKN: 890889 · Symbol: PUR
9,9620
EUR
-0,97 %
-0,0980 EUR
Letzter Kurs 08:00:01 Tradegate
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. % |
|---|---|---|
| 1,0000 | +809,09 | |
| 8,0000 | +45,45 | |
| 11,000 | +19,57 | |
| 527,60 | +15,68 | |
| 4,6900 | +15,52 |
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 0,7300 | -8,75 | |
| 0,6390 | -9,75 | |
| 0,7000 | -10,26 | |
| 324,70 | -10,30 | |
| 0,6601 | -26,22 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.418.156 von Bahram70 am 21.03.07 20:09:13Das könnte natürlich sein.
Hi Bahram70, schön wieder mal was von Dir zu lesen.
Ich glaube diesen Artikel hatten wir noch nicht. Er ist ganz interessant.
Er listet die sieben Gründe auf, die Summit anführt, die gegen eine Übernahme sprechen, spricht aber auch an, dass Summit letzte Woche die australische Presse informiert hat, dass Paladin Schwierigkeiten mit der Malawi Regierung wegen des Kayelekera Projektes haben könnte. Das hatten wir ja hier im Board schon diskutiert.
Der letzte Absatz ist auch ganz nett. Auch darüber haben wir uns heute ausgetauscht.
since the Paladin offer was launched Summit's largest shareholder, Firebird Global Master Fund, had sold its holding of 8.2% of Summit.
Auch hier wird die Vermutung im Raum gelassen, dass Paladin eventuell die 8,2% von Firebird gekauft haben könnte.
Der kleine Familenkrach nimmt doch ganz schöne Formen an. Ich würde mich nicht wundern, wenn Paladin noch vor Ablauf der Angebotsfrist erklärt, dass die 75,1% zusammen sind.
Und hier ist der Artikel.
SEVEN KEY REASONS FOR REJECTION
Summit Resources comes out punching over Paladin uranium bid
Australian junior uranium explorer Summit Resources has come out with its reasons for rejection of the unwelcome takeover offer from fellow uranium company, Paladin Resources.
Author: Ross Louthean
Posted: Tuesday , 20 Mar 2007
PERTH -
Summit Resources Ltd, which has substantial uranium deposits in Queensland, today put on its boxing gloves to combat an unwelcome takeover bid from emerging uranium producer Paladin Resources Ltd.
Both companies are domiciled in near-Perth suburbs and a few months ago had what could have been seen as a mild difference of opinion, when Paladin took over Valhalla Uranium Ltd, on whether Summit may have a right to buy the 50% stake in the Valhalla deposit and other areas in what was known as the Mt Isa Joint Venture.
Paladin acquired Valhalla Uranium, and when it announced a takeover bid more recently for Summit -- on the basis of one Paladin for every 2.04 Summit shares - Summit directors quickly dubbed this opportunistic and unwelcome.
Today Summit released a Target Statement, outlining seven key reasons why its shareholders should reject the bid from Paladin, which is just commissioning the Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia.
These claims were:
1. The offer does not recognise Summit's "unrealised potential": It does not recognise Summit's "world class" projects in one of the most prolific metal producing districts in the world, and does not adequately reflect the unrealised potential of Summit's projects.
2. Summit's world class deposits: The company believes it will be able to develop its Mt Isa uranium project into one of the top five uranium projects in the world. By rejecting the offer shareholders would avoid diluting their exposure to Summit's projects and would see shareholders avoid exposure to Paladin's "inferior" uranium projects in Namibia and Malawi.
3. The offer is timed to close before key events: The Paladin offer would close before the Australian Labor Party meets and was expected to reverse its policy of not allowing any new Australian uranium mines. Also there was expected to be a determination of the joint venture litigation action Summit commenced against Paladin and Valhalla Uranium's main shareholder Resolute Resources.
4. Paladin needs Summit but offers little: Paladin's projects have higher sovereign and political risk and Paladin needs Summit to diversify its risk away from Africa. Paladin wants to become operator of the Valhalla-Skal joint venture in Queensland (through the takeover of Valhalla Uranium); and Paladin recognises Valhalla and Skal deposits are geographically stranded within the 100% owned Summit tenements, and it cannot control development of those resources without a takeover.
5. Paladin will not manage the litigation in "Summit's interests": If Paladin gains control of Summit, Paladin "will not pursue the joint venture litigation with the vigour it deserves." Removal of the majority of Summit's board and replacement with Paladin appointees would not serve shareholder interest.
6. This may not be Paladin's last move: Paladin was unlikely to get control in the first attempt and may return with a higher offer in the future.
7. Paladin's offer may incur a significant capital gains tax liability: Paladin must acquire 80% of Summit shares before capital gains tax roll-over relief is available to Summit shareholders. "Your directors believe that this is very unlikely, leaving shareholders who accept with potentially large capital gains tax liabilities to be paid in cash."
Summit has undertaken some sparring before today. Last week it alerted the Australian media to African media reported problems Paladin may have with the Malawian Parliament being upset with its government over allegations of non disclosure of terms on royalty arrangements with Paladin for the mining of the advanced Kayelekera uranium deposit (which Paladin points out will have a tremendous impact on this poor country's gross domestic product).
Intierra's Minmet mining research data base shows that Paladin's current market capitalisation was $A4.609 billion based on the 500.97 million shares being priced on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) at $A9.20/share, whereas the market capitalisation for the Toronto Stock Exchange listing was $C4.138 billion based on the same number of shares at $C8.26/share.
Summit, listed on the ASX and also the New Zealand Stock Exchange, has a market capitalisation of $A902.3 M, based on 197.44 M shares @ $A4.57/share.
Paladin's counter punching will be interesting. In the Australian media today it reported Summits reasons for rejecting the big were flawed.
Paladin claimed that in April last year Summit claimed it expected to announce eight new resources on the joint venture ground, but this was downgraded to five or six in October. By the end of 2006 only the Valhalla resource was confirmed.
On the issue of when the Australian Labor Party would change its policy, Paladin's managing director John Borshoff claimed that by 2010 Western Australia and Queensland will be "uranium-friendly, as are South Australia and the Northern Territory."
The Australian newspaper reported that since the Paladin offer was launched Summit's largest shareholder, Firebird Global Master Fund, had sold its holding of 8.2% of Summit.
http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page31?oid=…
hang loose
dgni
Hi Bahram70, schön wieder mal was von Dir zu lesen.
Ich glaube diesen Artikel hatten wir noch nicht. Er ist ganz interessant.
Er listet die sieben Gründe auf, die Summit anführt, die gegen eine Übernahme sprechen, spricht aber auch an, dass Summit letzte Woche die australische Presse informiert hat, dass Paladin Schwierigkeiten mit der Malawi Regierung wegen des Kayelekera Projektes haben könnte. Das hatten wir ja hier im Board schon diskutiert.
Der letzte Absatz ist auch ganz nett. Auch darüber haben wir uns heute ausgetauscht.
since the Paladin offer was launched Summit's largest shareholder, Firebird Global Master Fund, had sold its holding of 8.2% of Summit.
Auch hier wird die Vermutung im Raum gelassen, dass Paladin eventuell die 8,2% von Firebird gekauft haben könnte.
Der kleine Familenkrach nimmt doch ganz schöne Formen an. Ich würde mich nicht wundern, wenn Paladin noch vor Ablauf der Angebotsfrist erklärt, dass die 75,1% zusammen sind.
Und hier ist der Artikel.
SEVEN KEY REASONS FOR REJECTION
Summit Resources comes out punching over Paladin uranium bid
Australian junior uranium explorer Summit Resources has come out with its reasons for rejection of the unwelcome takeover offer from fellow uranium company, Paladin Resources.
Author: Ross Louthean
Posted: Tuesday , 20 Mar 2007
PERTH -
Summit Resources Ltd, which has substantial uranium deposits in Queensland, today put on its boxing gloves to combat an unwelcome takeover bid from emerging uranium producer Paladin Resources Ltd.
Both companies are domiciled in near-Perth suburbs and a few months ago had what could have been seen as a mild difference of opinion, when Paladin took over Valhalla Uranium Ltd, on whether Summit may have a right to buy the 50% stake in the Valhalla deposit and other areas in what was known as the Mt Isa Joint Venture.
Paladin acquired Valhalla Uranium, and when it announced a takeover bid more recently for Summit -- on the basis of one Paladin for every 2.04 Summit shares - Summit directors quickly dubbed this opportunistic and unwelcome.
Today Summit released a Target Statement, outlining seven key reasons why its shareholders should reject the bid from Paladin, which is just commissioning the Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia.
These claims were:
1. The offer does not recognise Summit's "unrealised potential": It does not recognise Summit's "world class" projects in one of the most prolific metal producing districts in the world, and does not adequately reflect the unrealised potential of Summit's projects.
2. Summit's world class deposits: The company believes it will be able to develop its Mt Isa uranium project into one of the top five uranium projects in the world. By rejecting the offer shareholders would avoid diluting their exposure to Summit's projects and would see shareholders avoid exposure to Paladin's "inferior" uranium projects in Namibia and Malawi.
3. The offer is timed to close before key events: The Paladin offer would close before the Australian Labor Party meets and was expected to reverse its policy of not allowing any new Australian uranium mines. Also there was expected to be a determination of the joint venture litigation action Summit commenced against Paladin and Valhalla Uranium's main shareholder Resolute Resources.
4. Paladin needs Summit but offers little: Paladin's projects have higher sovereign and political risk and Paladin needs Summit to diversify its risk away from Africa. Paladin wants to become operator of the Valhalla-Skal joint venture in Queensland (through the takeover of Valhalla Uranium); and Paladin recognises Valhalla and Skal deposits are geographically stranded within the 100% owned Summit tenements, and it cannot control development of those resources without a takeover.
5. Paladin will not manage the litigation in "Summit's interests": If Paladin gains control of Summit, Paladin "will not pursue the joint venture litigation with the vigour it deserves." Removal of the majority of Summit's board and replacement with Paladin appointees would not serve shareholder interest.
6. This may not be Paladin's last move: Paladin was unlikely to get control in the first attempt and may return with a higher offer in the future.
7. Paladin's offer may incur a significant capital gains tax liability: Paladin must acquire 80% of Summit shares before capital gains tax roll-over relief is available to Summit shareholders. "Your directors believe that this is very unlikely, leaving shareholders who accept with potentially large capital gains tax liabilities to be paid in cash."
Summit has undertaken some sparring before today. Last week it alerted the Australian media to African media reported problems Paladin may have with the Malawian Parliament being upset with its government over allegations of non disclosure of terms on royalty arrangements with Paladin for the mining of the advanced Kayelekera uranium deposit (which Paladin points out will have a tremendous impact on this poor country's gross domestic product).
Intierra's Minmet mining research data base shows that Paladin's current market capitalisation was $A4.609 billion based on the 500.97 million shares being priced on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) at $A9.20/share, whereas the market capitalisation for the Toronto Stock Exchange listing was $C4.138 billion based on the same number of shares at $C8.26/share.
Summit, listed on the ASX and also the New Zealand Stock Exchange, has a market capitalisation of $A902.3 M, based on 197.44 M shares @ $A4.57/share.
Paladin's counter punching will be interesting. In the Australian media today it reported Summits reasons for rejecting the big were flawed.
Paladin claimed that in April last year Summit claimed it expected to announce eight new resources on the joint venture ground, but this was downgraded to five or six in October. By the end of 2006 only the Valhalla resource was confirmed.
On the issue of when the Australian Labor Party would change its policy, Paladin's managing director John Borshoff claimed that by 2010 Western Australia and Queensland will be "uranium-friendly, as are South Australia and the Northern Territory."
The Australian newspaper reported that since the Paladin offer was launched Summit's largest shareholder, Firebird Global Master Fund, had sold its holding of 8.2% of Summit.
http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page31?oid=…
hang loose
dgni
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.417.917 von dgni am 21.03.07 20:02:21vielleicht ->neuer Uranpreis ??
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.417.223 von DaDaumas am 21.03.07 19:43:27Ich vermute erst mal gar nichts. Es ist nur erstaunlich, wie der Wert plötzlich nach oben ab geht - ohne dass irgendwas zu erkennen ist.
Betrachtet man dazu noch den Umsatz, dann ist es noch mal mehr verwunderlich.
795,795 Stück in Deutschland (Frankfurt) und 608,560 Stück in Toronto.
Aber wie heißt es immer so schön? So viele können sich nicht irren.
hang loose - schön ist es allemal und XRambo wird`s auch freuen.
dgni
Betrachtet man dazu noch den Umsatz, dann ist es noch mal mehr verwunderlich.
795,795 Stück in Deutschland (Frankfurt) und 608,560 Stück in Toronto.
Aber wie heißt es immer so schön? So viele können sich nicht irren.
hang loose - schön ist es allemal und XRambo wird`s auch freuen.
dgni
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.416.662 von Vinyard am 21.03.07 19:25:29Blue Pearl ist die erste "Sahne".
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.415.362 von dgni am 21.03.07 18:41:48Vermutest du, dass heute das MittwochNewsAuto vorbeischaut?
Trading Spotlight
Hab zwar nicht Moly Mines aber Blue Pearl und Oriental und die gingen die letzten Tage auch ganz gut.... 
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.409.820 von Dirkix am 21.03.07 15:07:08Nun haben wir aber kräftig an einander vorbei geschrieben. Du bestätigst mit anderen Worten das, was ich auch ausdrücken wollte und auch bereits mit meinem posting
#16 von dgni Benutzerinfo Nachricht an Benutzer Beiträge des Benutzers ausblenden 05.03.07 13:11:39 Beitrag Nr.: 28.123.750
Übrigens, wen es interessiert. Auch der potentielle Übernahmekandidat (SMM) hat heute kräftig Federn gelassen.
Und dann hat noch einer seine Mehrheit verkauft.
05/03/2007, 17:33Uhr, SMM, Ceasing to be a substantial holder
http://www.bourseinvestor.com/bi4/pdfnews/default.asp?d=0070…
Um 17:33 Uhr wurde heute vermeldet, dass der Firebird Global Masterfund Ltd. sein Mehrheitsrecht verloren hat.
16.255.231 ordinary shares sind verkauft worden.
Wer die wohl gekauft hat?
Also nun sind wir ja alle on the same sheet of paper
Weiterhin einen guten Verlauf - heute lohnt es FSY zu beobachten.
hang loose
dgni
#16 von dgni Benutzerinfo Nachricht an Benutzer Beiträge des Benutzers ausblenden 05.03.07 13:11:39 Beitrag Nr.: 28.123.750
Übrigens, wen es interessiert. Auch der potentielle Übernahmekandidat (SMM) hat heute kräftig Federn gelassen.
Und dann hat noch einer seine Mehrheit verkauft.
05/03/2007, 17:33Uhr, SMM, Ceasing to be a substantial holder
http://www.bourseinvestor.com/bi4/pdfnews/default.asp?d=0070…
Um 17:33 Uhr wurde heute vermeldet, dass der Firebird Global Masterfund Ltd. sein Mehrheitsrecht verloren hat.
16.255.231 ordinary shares sind verkauft worden.
Wer die wohl gekauft hat?
Also nun sind wir ja alle on the same sheet of paper
Weiterhin einen guten Verlauf - heute lohnt es FSY zu beobachten.
hang loose
dgni
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.412.999 von XRambo am 21.03.07 17:03:28Hab Moly mines auch seit 0,96 auf der Watch...tja...aber keine Kohle übrig....trozdem Glückwunsch....wow...Forsys geht heut auch gut...schon über PDN....hab ich auch nicht...
Ich würde sagen, der Gewinn reicht wohl eher für ein aufblasbares Planschbecken für unser Baby, aber egal, besser als wenn es nach unten Rauscht, aber unser Paladin-Babe kommt scho wieder - im Dezember erwarte ich endlich die 10Euro.
Gruß
Gruß
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 28.412.999 von XRambo am 21.03.07 17:03:28Und, auf dem Grundstück noch Platz für einen beheizbaren Pool...?!?!
Durchsuchen
10.01.24 · wallstreetONLINE NewsUpdate · Deep Yellow |
10.01.24 · wallstreetONLINE Redaktion · Deep Yellow |
13.11.23 · Der Finanzinvestor · Cameco |
