Member Info for Culpepper

It’s hypothetical. There would need to be equity probably to get the debt through, but I think that would be the way to go, with visibility on years of earnings.

I wouldn’t worry about news releases. If Ggp stays as a company when it gets to mining ‘the market’ and the chat board will be looking at revenue and earnings during financial periods, Ggp results.
All this current malarkey will be gone on an everyday basis.
Get the FS and DTM done is the thing now.

Haven’t looked at it to be honest. Just huge sums of cash, or shares, to me.
On the takeover thing, and what the JV agreement protects both parties from, it occurs to me that for those anticipating a bid for Havieron/Ggp, then Ncm/Newmont/ANon, would be considering the same in reverse as part of their bid/due diligence.

But anyway, being in tune to the possibilities over last few days, rumoured for longer in mining terms, I have gone further in confirming my bias that Ggp and cohort are pretty confident that the JV can weather change arising from NCM corporate action.

They may be aware of other interest, and be in no rush to tie themselves in to Newmont, or hang it out to see who else pops up. But the new appointments seem to indicate Ggp and appointees have little concern about what Newcrest do now.

Sandgrounded. You’re right inso far as it is part of the indicative offer under consideration, but in view of the amount of work required I think will come should it proceed further. “Exclusivity agreements (also known as lock-out, shut-out or no-shop agreements) may be used in acquisitions of shares or businesses to limit the risk of a prospective buyer's losing out to a rival bidder after spending significant time and money on negotiations.”
Haha. Yesterdays news already.

I see no reason why Ggp should go up on the fact of this NCM news, or down for that matter. It is, at the moment status quo, and likely to remain so for months, with development ongoing. And in due course there will, if the deal proceeds, be a change in the management board and partner/developer.
Unless anyone chooses to believe mining Havieron will be viewed by Newmont as uneconomic, and Telfer plant expendable.
Whilst the deal is proceeding in a satisfactory manner, with exclusivity of access granted to Newmont, I would expect any major change of direction to at least form part of discussion between the parties.

All of this rather kicked that business about Newcrest getting JPM to buy Ggp shares cheap on their behalf under the counter into touch, hasn't it?

It's been on. Never mind. Going to take a while with it all, and plus approvals.
Don't suppose anything more of any note until signed up, unless Mr.Day and Co put out a caveated business as usual as far as they know RNS.

Uncertainty? I thought the talk would go to how much Newmont would go to to get Ggp's 30%.
Quelle surprise.

So, that's probably it until it goes through and Ggp tell us something, about any new structure around the JV, or it falls flat and somebody else comes along after end of any exclusivity agreement.

What has JPM got to do with it?

I don’t see any reason why, on the little that is known admittedly, any of this should be taken as detrimental to Havieron.
I do not foresee any bidding war on the NCM 70%, taking the view if NCM sell or merge, any deal is probably for the whole company, and Ggp’s stake is at the moment not for sale.- and why would a suitor or suitors wish to drive up the price.
All to come. There you go.

Friendly, in so far as negotiations imply an objective of reaching agreement on terms.

“Newcrest’s board has retained Herbert Smith Freehills’ Melbourne lawyers and investment bank Lazard Australia for assistance in the negotiations.”
That much seems, to me, to be pretty adamant. Conjecture as to who has made an approach, being dealt with on a friendly basis, through the NCM board.

Yes. We don’t know the terms, but this was an important document, undoubtedly prepared by specialists with all exigencies covered to the then satisfaction of both parties. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that ongoing access to Telfer would also have been considered.

Yes. All I know is the fairly broad basis of the JV here, when entered into It can obviously be changed by mutual agreement.
https://www.investegate.co.uk/greatland-gold-plc/rns/two-jv-agreements-and-funding-for-havieron/202011300700098437G/
Maybe somebody knows more.

And if anything worthy of shareholders attention here arises, I have little doubt we shall hear of it direct. I doubt this is the case at present.

Talk of defensive is unnecessary. Values will be determined and agreed for anything to go through. Neither party will be stupid, and they will be advised.

Just to be clear. Ggp assets can’t be sold unless Ggp decide to do so.