Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Yukon Nevada Gold Corp T.YNG



TSX:YNG - Post by User

Comment by MrGRPon Jun 18, 2012 5:03pm
307 Views
Post# 20027558

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm kind of surprised we're no

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm kind of surprised we're no

I think the reason we / YNG no longer has a "poison pill" so to speak. is because they don't need one anymore and are trying to attract buyers or interested parites. I think this was put in place at a time when they were most vulnerable to takeover at a low price and to protect the amount of investment they were injecting into the company. That is now complete and we have a valuable asset in the mill and after todays and th is months announcment we have worth in the company.

I also don't think they need one because as Richard sais, The three big players own in excess of 50% of the company shares and that is not to mention how many shares are owned by the members of the board of directors or employees of YNG and these guys are not going to give the company away.

There are also the investors like many of us who are long and who are not going to give away our sharesfor less then they are worth.

So if someone came up with an offer of $1.00 maybe it would not make a different who owned what but then that would probably not relate to a hostile takeover. Other than that I also find it extremely unlikely that we have to be concerned about a hotstile takeover, but that is just my opinion

Hostile takeovers

A hostile takeover allows a suitor to take over a target company whose management is unwilling to agree to a merger or takeover. A takeover is considered "hostile" if the target company's board rejects the offer, but the bidder continues to pursue it, or the bidder makes the offer directly after having announced its firm intention to make an offer.

A hostile takeover can be conducted in several ways. A tender offer can be made where the acquiring company makes a public offer at a fixed price above the current market price. An acquiring company can also engage in a proxy fight, whereby it tries to persuade enough shareholders, usually a simple majority, to replace the management with a new one which will approve the takeover. Another method involves quietly purchasing enough stock on the open market, known as a creeping tender offer, to effect a change in management. In all of these ways, management resists the acquisition but it is carried out anyway.

Best of fortune to all !

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>