Forum Archive Index - April 2001

["Colin Ross" <ceejaynz@xtra.co.nz>]

Does anyone think it might be constructive if we all said

"SORRY"

in a loud clear voice ?

Ceejay

----- Original Message -----

From: greg

To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz

Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:54 AM

Subject: [sharechat] RBC,FFS,etc

Ceejay

 

I don't see RBC as a barrier to a takeover of FFS at all.  Perhaps an easy way for a company to get a controlling stake in FFS would be to takeover RBC, sell of some of its assets and use the capital to increase its stake in FFS.

 

As for CITIC, they repeatedly refused to go to arbitration over the CNIFP spat and one can only wonder why.  Instead they have been intent on pursuing the matter in court.  Perhaps its the way things are done in China - I don't know.  I'll be very interested to see if CITIC shows any interest in buying any of the CNIFP assets that are now in the hands of the receivers.  So far the only party showing any interest at all is CAH.

 

Regards,

greg

 

 

 

 

 

Please note usage of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions.

Messages by Date [	Next by Date	Previous by Date ]
Messages by Thread [	Next by Thread	Previous by Thread ]
Post to the forum [	New message	Reply to this message ]

Re: Re: Re: [sharechat] Greg and greg are different.

---

• Subject: Re: Re: Re: [sharechat] Greg and greg are different.
• From: "Colin Ross" <ceejaynz@xtra.co.nz>
• Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:51:27 +1200

---

Is FFS vulnerable to a CITIC  buy-out?

CITIC could theoretically solve all its CNIFP problems by standing in the market for a good slice of FFS.

What opinions do we have about the strategic importance of a friendly company (ie Rubicon), holding a big enough slice to provide a barrier ?

Ceejay