Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Chidliak Royalty Part III

BHP has finally responded to the court action by Peregrine Diamonds.

Basically, they include legal reasons that it would have been okay if the Chidliak Royalty would have been spun out of BHP and included in the South 32 company.

Here is an updated timeline of events:

April 17th - BHP Canada transferred the Royalty to BHP Royalty Ltd. (A subsidary).
BHP said this is fine because this is just a subsidary at this point in time.

April 27th - PGD did not accept the transfer of the asset to the subsidary as it was known the subsidary was going to be demerged into South 32.

May 12th - PGD brings to court that first of refusal is being enacted because of the South 32 demerger. - Court date set for May 14th.

May 14th - Court date deferred.

May 14th - BHP Canada transfers back the Chidliak Royalty back to BHP Canada from BHP Royalty and is now excluded from the demerger. BHP still insists that going through with the demerger and the asset did not qualify for a first right of refusal event.

July 2nd - BHP submits facts and responses to the court alleging that the transfer to the subsidary was within it's rights and it ended up transferring it back to purposely avoid it from going with the demerger South 32. It was allowed to do this as it was not considered material to the South 32 demerger...so unaffected by the already shareholder voting.
BHP still insists that it could have been allowed to demerger the Chidliak Royalty to South32 as pertaining to details defined in the first right of refusal document. 
Therefore based on this -- BHP is seeking an order that the action be dismissed with costs.

The Chidliak Royalty is now back into BHP Canada's hands as was the original case and that sounds like it will be there for a long time.

BHP is now seeking that PGD pays for court costs.

So, it is still up to the courts to decide of the South 32 demerger would have triggered the first right of refusal. If the court agrees, BHP may have to pay PGD's costs. If the court disagrees, PGD may have to pay BHP's costs.

The Royalty remains unaffected going forward and remains with BHP Canada.


3 comments:

  1. This sounds like an Ekim interpretation, with no basis in law.
    If the court does not uphold the first right of refusal, then my
    guess would be that PGD's legal beagels slipped up somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are 29 distinct points in the BHP response. Anyone can procure (pay for) access to the data through the BC justice site -- https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
      I refrain from posting all the details as I don't want to get into legal trouble.
      So, yes, this would be an interpretation.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for sharing this Mike

      Delete