That was a reference to the shares of Southgold Exploration, the GBGLF subsidiary that is under business rescue. The requirement was that the offer either be for buying the Burnstone mine from Southgold Exploration or buy all the shares of Southgold Exploration. If the buyer prefers to maintain Southgold as the legal entity under which they own Burnstone, then they buy the shares of Southgold and if they prefer to use a different legal entity, they buy the mine from Southgold and Southgold is dissolved. The difference doesn't matter much for shareholders.
On the positive side, the bondholders won inclusion in the creditor's committee of BR in SA court. So, there will be an effort made to "cover" that debt in some way in addition to Southgold's secured debt. That is a win for both bondholders and shareholders as it would seem to make it more likely that that debt is "covered" and we make over the claims hurdle.
I think our best scenario is one in which SA majors Gold Fields and AngloGold Ashanti both pursue Burnstone. Both those companies pursue cheap growth by spending on greenfield and brownfield exploration each year. As best as I can tell, buying Burnstone for say 600m would be significantly cheaper than a comparably developed greenfield exploration project for either firm. Also, over time it would probably afford the even cheaper brownfield exploration type growth. So, it seems cheaper than a kind of cheap growth they pursue year in and out. Consequently, I don't think we need a hail mary pass here or a careless foreign buyer, we just need those two to pursue rational self interest in SA. For reasons I posted earlier (6319 & 6329), Burnstone seems largely immune from the reasons for SA discounting and if that is the right read, the SA majors would know that well.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
