re: Ann: WNI: Circular in relation to Takeove... How can the Board endorse a takeover valuation that is so significantly lower than that of their own independent expert?
I've tried to find a precedent for this but I can't .. likely because no other Board in Australian corporate history could be so blatantly audacious.
Furthermore, the response from the valuer indicates that the valuation should likely be revised due to the development of additional factors that BRM has not provided enough information on:
“Jones Lang LaSalle Sallmanns Limited, the Competent Evaluator, has stated to the Company that it noted that BRM had announced certain developments to its mineral assets after the publication of the valuation report which may be relevant to the valuation of BRM’s mineral assets, but due to the lack of specific information in respect of such developments, it is unable to quantitatively evaluate the impact of such development and in the absence of specific information warranting changes to the valuation amount as of 16 June 2011 set out in the valuation report in Appendix V to this circular, it considers the valuation as of 16 June 2011 remains unchanged.”
These developments would appear to have significantly INCREASED the valuation and include:
- Improvements to operating costs due to a revised FEED design
- Increased yields as a result of beneficiation test work results
Furthermore the valuation attributes no value at all to any of BRM’s other assets - it is for Marillana alone – hence how is it possible for this valuation to even be used when assessing it against the valuation the Directors have endorsed for BRM as a whole?
The valuation is only for one of BRM’s many assets (Marillana).... what about the others?
- Cash at Bank
- Irwin-Coglia
- NWIOA – port allocation
- Duck Creek
- Opthalmia
- West Hammersley
- Mt Stuart
- Mt Florence
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 1 more message in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
