CDCH - Discussion

Here it is:

This shareholder update, dated March 31, 2017, is being provided to the shareholders of Cerro Dorado, Inc. and the general public, by way of posting on the company’s website. This information and additional updated information will be provided directly to the company’s shareholders in April 2017, through a shareholder mailing that will include a Notice of Annual Shareholders meeting to be scheduled in May 2017, an accompanying Information Statement and Proxy materials, and a Private Placement Memorandum.

  1. Resignation of Patrick Day as Officer and Director

In February 2014, Christopher Day was appointed as a director of Cerro Dorado by William Hoffman and B Thom Clark, the remaining directors of Cerro at that time. Messrs. Hoffman and Clark subsequently resigned and later in February Patrick Day was appointed as a second director.

At the time of their appointments, the state of Cerro’s governing documents was such that very little action could have taken place to clean up the company and therefore super-voting preferred shares were issued to aid in the ability to guide the company in a positive direction (i.e. negotiating and settling outstanding claims, writing off debt that exceeded the statute of limitations, bringing financial statements current, investigating and confirming ownership of mining claims, and reviewing actions of prior management). As a result of the Days’ efforts, including those of corporate counsel Michael Labertew, the company eliminated all of the debt outstanding on financial statements delivered to the new board, began to publish periodical reports and turned its focus to adding value to the company.

In May 2016, following Christopher Day’s resignation as an officer and director, Cerro’s shareholders elected Jose Manuel Borquez and George Young as additional Directors for the company at the company’s annual shareholder meeting, approved a 1-for-15 reverse stock split and approved the pursuit of additional projects with the goal of increasing the value of the company. Mr. Borquez and Mr. Young are both mining attorneys, who have collectively over 50 years of international mining experience with both private and public companies.

Unfortunately, as is wont to happen with a company whose assets do not generate revenue, individual investments (and Patrick’s ability to personally advance funds to Cerro), which had allowed Cerro to pay its way through 2014 and 2015, ceased in 2016 leaving Cerro unable to pay its service providers, renew its agreement with OTC Markets, and therefore keep its public reports current.

In recent months, the alleged actions of Les Price as related to Medinah Minerals have had rippling effects with Cerro, in that Mr. Price had a long-standing relationship with both Medinah and Cerro. Although Mr. Price has not been associated with Cerro in any capacity other than shareholder since the spring of 2016, his alleged actions with Medinah have caused concern with shareholders of Cerro. In addition, Mr. Price worked closely with Christopher and Patrick Day related to Cerro and, as a result, there have been allegations that Mr. Price’s actions have tainted those of Patrick Day.

Following the revelations of Medinah’s under-reporting of outstanding equity, Mr. Day conducted an internal audit of Cerro’s outstanding equity and found no aberrations. None were expected, as Mr. Price’s role with Cerro was that of a liaison between Cerro U.S and Cerro Chile, and he was not involved in the day-to-day operations as he was with Medinah. Regardless, due to Mr. Price being issued millions of shares of Cerro in the past for services, and his veracity being called into question, an administrative hold was placed on all of Mr. Price’s shareholdings in Cerro, just as they were with Juan Jose Qujiano Fernandez in 2015, when Mr. Labertew accused Mr. Quijano of numerous misrepresentations and breaches of his fiduciary duties to Cerro, following months of due diligence and the assistance of Mr. Borquez.

Mr. Labertew has reviewed numerous communications between Mr. Day and Mr. Price, along with a review of the company’s financials, including its Statement of Equity, and previous transactions between Cerro and Mr. Price. Mr. Labertew has found no evidence of wrong doing of any kind as it relates to Mr. Day and Cerro, or between Mr. Day and Mr. Price. It is important to note that Mr. Labertew has never represented Mr. Day personally in any matters, legal or otherwise.

Nevertheless, Mr. Day has determined that it is in the best interests of the shareholders of Cerro to tender his resignation, effective March 31, 2017, as an officer and director of the company. His preferred shares of the company will be transferred to Mr. Borquez, and Mr. Borquez will be appointed as President of Cerro. The company will be seeking to appoint an additional director at the May 2017 meeting of shareholders to fill Mr. Day’s position.

  1. Status of negotiations with Auryn Holdings related to the Auryn Mining capital call

In mid-February 2017, Cerro learned that Auryn Mining Chile, SpA would be holding a shareholder’s meeting to vote on the question of effectuating a capital call to all of its shareholders which would require Cerro to invest $300,000 in order to maintain its 5% interest. Under the terms of the capital call, if no amount was invested by Cerro as part of the capital call, Cerro would face dilution in Auryn Mining down to less than 1%. The terms of the Capital Call allowed Cerro to subscribe to the Call at a second meeting, held on March 15, which it did. Doing so allowed Cerro 30 days to raise the needed capital.

On March 11, 2017, Cerro learned that Medinah Minerals had reached an agreement whereby Medinah’s 27.5% interest in Auryn Minings would be maintained, through financing provided by a separate entity, Auryn Holdings Corp. Cerro reached out to Auryn Holdings, to determine if a similar financing could be arranged for Cerro, rather than Cerro needing to raise $300,000 itself from its existing shareholder base and/or new investors. Cerro was informed that this was unlikely, as Medinah and Cerro were in “completely different situations.” Medinah had significant investments and shareholdings by owners of Auryn Mining and Auryn Holdings; Cerro did not.

Regardless, Cerro advanced an offer to Auryn Holdings, including a position on Cerro’s board and significant stock position in exchange for a 30-month financing of the $300,000 capital call. Unfortunately, for the reasons explained above, Auryn Holdings respectfully declined these terms, but offered to finance the $300,000 until June 15, 2017, at no interest, thereby giving Cerro an additional two months to raise $300,000 or a portion thereof. Cerro accepted this offer and is awaiting the finalized agreement for signing.

As a result, Cerro will be seeking to raise up to $300,000 through a Rights Offering between April and June 10, available initially to existing shareholders only, and subsequently offered to outside investors, as explained in more detail in Section 6, below.

  1. Upcoming Annual Shareholder Meeting

As explained above, Cerro will hold its Annual Shareholder Meeting in May, in Salt Lake City, at a specific date to be determined. At the meeting, the company will elect directors, discuss its financials, and will report on its developments related to fund raising for the Auryn capital call. In addition, the company will report, discuss, consider and potentially vote on additional mining opportunities in Chile and South America, including the Andacollo mine, discussed in more detail in Section 5, below. The company will also report, discuss, consider and potentially vote on acquisition opportunities, including a potential acquisition of an aesthetic laser medical device company in Georgia that has annual revenues of approximately $1.5m, to bring additional value to Cerro while it explores its mining opportunities. Cerro has no interest in losing its identity as a mining company, and is simply looking at additional prospects as separate divisions and as a means to an end, i.e., to attract capital for mining opportunities by mitigating risk to investors and potentially bringing in established, cash-flowing companies.

  1. Implementation of non-dilution mechanisms for existing Cerro shareholders

Since 2016 when Cerro was issued its 5% interest in Auryn Mining, the company has been considering mechanisms that would allow for the protection of existing Cerro shareholders from future dilution. There have been discussions of creating a separate subsidiary that would hold the Auryn shares. It was determined that such a course of action would require that the subsidiary be registered with the SEC as a separate public company, so that there were not negative tax consequences to existing shareholders. This path, however, would be costly in legal, accounting and regulatory costs and filing fees, in excess of $50,000.

Cerro has determined that a much more simplistic and effective solution is to have its Auryn shares remain with Cerro, as opposed to separate subsidiary. Further, in order to protect existing shareholders from dilution related to fund raisings, acquisitions and similar events in the future, Cerro will make a dividend declaration to the shareholders of record as of the date that Cerro sends notice of it Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The dividend would not be funded until a future date when its Auryn shares are monetized, which could occur through a market sale if and when Auryn becomes public, or a private sale at acceptable market terms, or a similar liquidity event.

At the time of such event, whether it be several months or several years from now, the distribution of funds would be to only the shareholders of record that existed at the time of the dividend declaration, which would be April or May 2017. In addition, the dividend declaration would state that all funds received from a liquidity event would be distributed to such shareholder base, after deducting accounting and fund processing fees, which would be limited to no more than $10,000, which works out to less than $7 per shareholder, given Cerro’s approximate 1,500 shareholder base (including those of record and with DTC).

In addition to this anti-dilution mechanism, there has been concern from certain Cerro shareholders related to our discussions of potential acquisitions and potential fundings, that such efforts would result in substantial dilution to existing shareholders. It appears that there has been a misconception that the potential acquisition of the medical device company would be akin to a reverse merger, resulting in a more significant reverse stock split, followed by the typical 95%+ issuance of shares to the reverse merger operating company. This, however, is an incorrect assumption. The acquisition being contemplated would not be a reverse acquisition, but rather an acquisition of a company that would become a wholly-owned subsidiary, with existing (May 2017 forward) Cerro management remaining in control, and no additional reverse stock split, beyond the 1-for-15 split that was approved in May 2016.

Similarly, the funding that is being discussed for additional mining opportunities is not a stock-for-cash financing, but rather debt financing, repaid from gold mining operational cash flow, with a modest stock incentive issuance, again thereby reducing stock dilution to the existing shareholder base.

  1. Additional mining acquisition opportunity: Andacollo Mine

At the 2016 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Cerro announced that it was exploring a mining opportunity in northern Chile called Alto Adigio, which was a gold tailings project. Cerro continued to conduct due diligence on that opportunity through summer 2016, and determined that it should not be pursued. One of the reasons was the relatively small size of the mining operation, which was not attractive to many of the existing Cerro shareholders with whom management discussed the opportunity, including John Menzies, who is not only a substantial shareholder of Cerro, but who is involved with an equity fund that invests in mining operations.

Since that time, Cerro’s management has been reviewing numerous, additional mining opportunities in Chile and South America, and is currently in negotiations for the acquisition of a mining operation in northern Chile, the Andacollo Mine, an operating mine with reported reserves of approximately 50,000 ozs in one of the most prolific gold- bearing mining districts in Chile. The mine has a plant, power, water and permits in place and the potential for the discovery of a further 200,000 ozs. It is being offered for US $ 5M, which Mr. Borquez has been negotiating to a US$ 500,000 down payment with subsequent payments coming out of the mine’s cashflow. We have had initial discussions with Mr. Menzies about having his investment group consider assisting with funding larger opportunities, and will be discussing the Andacollo opportunity in more detail in the near future.

A more in-depth report is being prepared for dissemination to Cerro’s shareholders in April, through both an additional posting on the company’s website, as well as materials in the Notice of Annual Meeting package.

  1. Fund raising/PPM

Cerro intends to offer, initially to existing shareholders of the company pursuant to a Rights Offering, 30 million shares at $.01 per share, as follows:

a. For the first 14 days of the Rights Offering, only existing Cerro shareholders of record would be able to participate in the Rights Offering, which would be on a pro rata basis without risk of dilution. If, for example, Cerro had 300,000,000 shares issued and outstanding (instead of the current approximately 275,000,000), a shareholder who owned 3,000,000 shares would own 1% of Cerro’s outstanding common stock and would be permitted to purchase up to 1% of the 30,000,000 shares being offered, equivalent to 300,000 shares and a $3,000.00 investment.

b. During the next 14 days of the Rights Offering, only existing Cerro shareholders of record would be able to participate in the Rights Offering, but rather than on a pro rata basis, any existing shareholder would be entitled to purchase up to 10% of the shares remaining in the offering. For example, if during the initial 20-day period, 10,000,000 shares of the 30,000,000 shares were subscribed, thereby leaving 20,000,000 shares, then during the next 20 days, existing Cerro shareholders could, on a first-come, first-serve basis acquire up to the entire 20,000,000 shares remaining.

c. After the initial 28 days of the Right Offering, Cerro would be able to privately offer any remaining shares of its private offering to accredited investors only, outside of the existing shareholder base.

Cerro understands that a $.01 (One Cent) share price is in excess of the current market value of its shares being traded on OTC Markets. However, it believes that a more accurate valuation for purposes of the private offering is the $.01 price, given its historic pricing in the market over the past several years.

Simultaneously with the $300,000 Rights Offering, Cerro intends to raise $750,000 for the acquisition of the Andacollo Mine, through the issuance of 15%, 2-year Debentures, repaid from Andacollo’s operations, plus a common stock equity incentive, with 100,000 shares of common stock being issued for every $10,000 invested, for up to a total of 7,500,000 shares issued. At this time, the precise details of the funding are being explored and negotiated, and should be finalized by the time the Notice of Meeting is sent to Cerro shareholders in April 2017.

  1. Website

Cerro will be hiring a webmaster the first week of April to update the website, its information and content, and allow the company to post news and additional material on a regular basis.

  1. Immediate need for funding

In order for Cerro to bring its reports current with OTC Markets, including paying OTC Markets and its accountants and an outside law firm for a Current Information Letter, and in order to process and pay for the mailing of the Notice of Meeting and holding of the Annual Shareholder Meeting itself, Cerro is in need of a cash infusion in the amount of $10,000. In exchange for this investment, Cerro would offer a convertible note, convertible at a 50% discount to market rate at the time of conversion.

Investors should be aware that funds used by the Company in the past few years have been primarily for accountants and OTC Markets costs. American Registrar & Transfer has not been paid cash since 2012; legal fees in the amount of $4,000 cash were paid in 2014; and management has received $5,000 in cash since 2014.

During the management transition phase explained above, Cerro would ask that interested investors please contact Cerro’s legal counsel, Michael Labertew, at michael@labertewlaw.com, to discuss this necessary funding, in order that Cerro can execute on the numerous items described above.

Sincerely,
Cerro Dorado, Inc.

1 Like

KMT, you have the job :smiley:

1 Like

Doubt he’d even touch this.

Crappy stuff all around.

you might see it as crappy stuff but at least it is clarity. we all knew or surmised a need for cash. This makes sense to me. Put John on the board.

2 Likes

John would be my top choice. Unfortunately, he’sprobably got more worthwhile things to be tackling.

1 Like

No interest in joining the BOD. I was expecting the rights offering. Not ideal but, for those who place value on the 5% of AMC, this would be their chance to directly add to the same. Unfortunately, I’m very aware that many, if not most, of CDCH and MDMN shareholders don’t have the capacity to add to their investment so it will be interesting to see how the $300k is ultimately raised.

Per Michael’s comments, a $300k capital call would have diluted CDCH’s holdings by over 80%. This relates to my earlier comments that AMC isn’t valuing itself anywhere near $20M. Yes, this could be a cram down situation which, IMO, is highly unethical but was inevitably decided as the best way to get the scumbags out of AMC (Ian Dow, Les, Claro, JJ). I don’t think the intention was to screw over CDCH shareholders but that is the ultimate outcome. Which is why I am surprised that AMC didn’t accept Cerro’s offer for shares and a seat on the board but such is life.

I would say that Michael addressed the other concerns re: to dilution in pursuing other acquisitions. This does not appear to be a risk so the only dilution of our 5% of AMC will come with the rights offering. In pursuing some of the tailing/mining opportunities, I haven’t seen the information of the new project but they could easily arrange a stream financing. This would avoid further dilution and could generate significant cash flow. Given that CDCH is currently trading at at $1M market cap it wouldn’t take much to drive the price significantly higher if this type of financing was arranged.

Paying $5M for a 50koz resource seems pretty steep but I assume there are other variables.

3 Likes

To dilute us down to 1% for failing to come up with $300,000 Auryn is valuing itself at $7.5million. Ridiculous!!! “Cram down” is a major understatement.

$300,000 divided by 4million shares equals .075 times 100million shares.

They have probably invested at least twice that much in the mountain. They are giving no mineral value to the mountain. Absolute BS.

They are screwing us. I think we are entitled to have them explain the math!!!

So much for thinking Auryn is looking out for us weary shareholders!!

1 Like

Absolutely! But to be clear, it is CDCH that is continuing to treat shareholders unethically.

This is a far cry from where we were at the last shareholders meeting. Much is being misrepresented in today’s announcement. CDCH’s BOD failed completely to appreciate AURYN’s potential at the expense of all shareholders. Michael and Patrick would not listen to shareholder’s ideas following AURYN’s informational meeting.

[quote=“easymillion, post:323, topic:928”] From May 16, 2016
Baldy said: “Every shareholder of CDCH on record will receive their proportionate ownership in the private company. As a private company, overhead expenses will be next to nothing so we won’t suffer from dilution while waiting for an ultimate tender offer.”

EM responded: I hope you didn’t mean “shareholder of record” (certificate holders) when you stated this. My understanding (and the purpose of the NOBO/OBO list) is that all shareholders as of the record date (yet to be announced) will participate in that 5% equity interest in AURYN. The “new CDCH” under the proposed La Serena-Alto Adigio Project will have no stake whatsoever in the spun out “long term call/leap on AMC” as you phrased it. Is this your understanding as well?
[/quote]
Baldy was right in that only shareholders of record would have preferred status regarding AURYN equity interest… Common shareholders (street name holders) would not receive much consideration in being protected from dilution. We all missed the boat when assuming overhead expenses would be next to nothing, The real reason the La Serena-Alto Adigio Project did not move forward is because another entity had already been awarded the project. Patrick was completely blindsided by this when he was informed the proposed project was no longer available to us. Michael and George had failed to secure an exclusive proposal before presenting it at the last shareholder meeting.
In fact, if you are not currently a shareholder of record, you may not receive the AURYN dividend we were led to believe was being kept in safe keeping. There does not appear from the announcement that common shareholders will ever receive a dividend from AURYN’s success. Shareholders will no longer hold or share in a 5% equity interest in AURYN. The 5% equity dividend will only be distributed to a select few.[quote=“TexHorn, post:499, topic:928”]
Cerro will make a dividend declaration to the shareholders of record as of the date that Cerro sends notice of it Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The dividend would not be funded until a future date when its Auryn shares are monetized, which could occur through a market sale if and when Auryn becomes public, or a private sale at acceptable market terms, or a similar liquidity event.

At the time of such event, whether it be several months or several years from now, the distribution of funds would be to only the shareholders of record that existed at the time of the dividend declaration, which would be April or May 2017.
[/quote]

This appears to be the same (or at least similar) underhanded maneuver that Karl warned of regarding those with shares of Medinah Gold.

“The only concern I would have is what happened to those individuals that held certificates in Medinah Gold that never got there shares in the merger with American Sierra Gold. I am not sure what happen there, but I would sure hope that this could not happen here as well!”

Will street share holders have an opportunity to convert street shares to certificate form? I don’t believe with the current non-reporting status of the company and short time frame that my brokerage will allow a conversion to certificate form. This should be illegal and is far too similar to what had occurred to reward only insiders when shares of Medinah Gold were converted to AMNP, IMO. Do common shareholders have any voice at all in this matter?

If Auryn is valuing their company at $7.5million, they are the ones screwing us, causing for the 80% dilution. This will be a non issue at this point if CDCH is able to raise the $300k where the worst case scenario for dilution within CDCH is only 10% or less.

Just as with the MDMN stock dividend years back, your brokerage will have to match any distributions either from Auryn or CDCH even if your shares are in street name.

1 Like

Can anyone here answer definitively what the difference between a “shareholder of record” and a “shareholder on record” is? If I remember correctly the bylaws allow a “shareholder of record” (i.e. a certificate shareholder) to vote at an annual meeting, whereas a beneficial shareholder (i.e. “streetshare” holder) does not have a vote. Does the company’s announcement, presumably prepared by an attorney, define “shareholder of record” in the same way when stating who will receive dividend shares of AURYN when they are monetized?

…the distribution of funds would be to only the shareholders of record that existed at the time of the dividend declaration, which would be April or May 2017.

Auryn valued at 7.5 million, impossible, if I remember, MDMN has an option to buy an extra 5% of Auryn for 50 million.

And where did those numbers come from I didn’t see anything on Autun’s website?

If we are going to lose 4 million shares for failing to pay the $300,000, its just math. $300,000/4million shares equals .075 per share. .075 times 100million shares equals $7.5million value for Auryn.

If we are unable to raise the $300,000 and the dilution above occurs, Auryn is going to have to justify the valuation they are using. They cannot just pick a value they want and punish us with it. A third party will have to be hired to do a valuation of Auryn stock.

They should put Kevin as President here to.

1 Like

Why in the world would he want to? Not sure he owns any CDCH to start with. He’s got enough on his plate with MDMN and its not like its rewarding financially

Just to say, that we need someone we can trust.

That is the correct number they are using to value the company. They are basically attributing the value to the money they’ve already spent ($8M)ish. The correct value should be closer to $20-$30M. This is a highly unethical capital call. Is it legal? Probably? Does it place AMC on the same level as our legacy BOD members? Pretty much. I don’t believe their original intention was to screw over CDCH shareholders (only Les & Crew) and that is EXACTALY why Maurizio should have taken the shares and BOD seat in exchange for a similar deal that MDMN got. With Patrick stepping down, officially, I’m hoping that AMC might reconsider. The problem with a rights offering is that there is NO guarantee AMC doesn’t decide to do another cram down offering a month from now. Same goes for MDMN but they are more protected b/c AMC owns shares. I’m going to spend some time next week to better understand how many shares Maurizio was offered. We need to get him involved in CDCH through equity ownership to remove the constant overhang of another capital call.

5 Likes

So, regarding CDCH their intentions may be to dilute us in to oblivion!

So much for the knights on white horses!!

If so, Kevin better be watching his back over at MDMN as well.

2 Likes

Hi John. You mention that you feel the unethical capital call ( $7.5 million mkt cap for Auryn ) is probably legal. How can it be legal when they give zero value to the mountain ( 10,500 hectares ) on which Maurizio himself said he spent 4 years putting all the pieces together to control it. I doubt that Major mining companies would be spending anytime on a mountain that today had a value of only $7.5million. Something seems terribly wrong here.

I’m certain that Auryns IPO is going to be substantially greater than $7.5 million in less than 8 months.

Is there a contact email for Auryn?

2 Likes

Posting my opinion here as a CDCH shareholder . . .

My understanding is that Cerro was given 90 days to raise the money. That’s plenty of time for a company that plans on going into other business interests and sees themselves as something more than just an Auryn stockholder.

As a shareholder of CDCH, I’m disappointed. I think if the CDCH BOD showed any interest at all in Auryn over the last year and communicated with Auryn from the beginning, CDCH might have gotten terms similar to the ones Medinah received.

Medinah has made it clear to Auryn and the public what its intentions are and that MDMN is not going in any other business direction. It will rise or sink with Auryn.

If we CDCH shareholders can somehow gain full control of the company and put a trusted team in place that values the Auryn shares we may be able to negotiate other terms. Unfortunately, I don’t know if there’s time for that unless the existing BOD is willing to just walk away and give up control of the company to the shareholders.

I will also add, that there is no guarantee that Auryn will succeed. There is plenty of geological risk to the project. John is one of the few who has a grasp regarding what undeveloped properties are actually worth – not much. We don’t know what the future holds and maybe the new BOD can deliver value outside of Auryn. Raising the money to protect the 5% will be the first test.

6 Likes