Kevin, understandable to be sure. A couple of points:
no one can change the past. we didn’t control things then. and even if we did, the past is the past.
with Patrick resigning, is not a potential new door opening and one potential roadblock being removed?
I understand your other comments. Perhaps if we could just establish some sort of rapport an attempt could be made to find a new creative solution or two. Perhaps John’s suggestion that a significant (even if non-controlling) position in CDCH and a seat on the BOD is a starting place. There could be others.
Again, speaking personally as a shareholder of CDCH . . .
I don’t think Patrick resigning changes anything. I can’t speak for Auryn, but I don’t see them accepting a board seat on a company that is looking to raise money and get into other businesses. We shareholders need to either take over and vote in a BOD who will carry out our wishes or we let the current BOD go forward as they determine best into other ventures.
Raising the money will be the first test. If they can’t raise 300k and keep our 5% from getting diluted, I don’t hold out much hope for success in other ventures.
Who knows. Perhaps this works out for the better. They raise the $300k and also the other funds and actually create value.
I highly doubt anyone gives a damn about the other business ventures other than the BOD, we obviously all invested because of the potential of the deposit which is now our percent of auryn. All efforts should have been concentrated on maximizing our return by minimizing dilution. Receiving auryn shares would be great or getting a BOD that has the ability to restablish a working relationship with auryn. Know anybody? I’d rather show these guys the door so they can pursue whatever they want and leave us the hell out of it. And thank you for your help with mdmn, Kevin.
This is very true, but time is very short. With Patrick out of the picture, who is communicating directly with AURYN on behalf of current CDCH shareholders? Up until now it does not seem shareholders have held any sway in getting the BOD to negotiate with AURYN directly. The dilution from meeting the cash call and fund another project will mostly go directly to insiders who will get the bulk of AURYN shares in any dividend distributed, as was true from SHM last year, IMO, and only to shareholders of record (those with certificates, not streetshare holders).
and more recently,
The shareholders I have communicated with have no interest in funding another project either. If the current BOD is unsuccessful in raising the bulk of the $300K through it’s contacts to meet the cash call (and further arrange to fund a project), how much is 1% of AURYN worth to current shareholders? Pleadings from shareholders have fallen on deaf ears ever since the informational meeting in Las Vegas. There are only a few hundred posts in this thread. All current shareholders could benefit from reading through ALL of them (especially May and April of last year). It only takes a few minutes and many have expressed the changing tides and red flags we’ve been experiencing for more than a few years. Take the time and refresh your memory to see how we’ve arrived to our current state and share price. Our BOD needs to hear directly from shareholders, appreciate the potential value in the 5% of AURYN, and make a renewed effort to negotiate better terms on a loan from AURYN. The following post was made Oct 16 a few weeks after the informational meeting in LV.
what a bunch of shit! Where is the BH? cant he retake the company and begin rebulding the BOD til we have a group willing to only negotiate with Auryn? We need to only protect the 5%! no new ventures til we are cash positive. period
Ditto! This has been communicated repeatedly to the only BOD contacts on file since the informal LV shareholder meeting that followed AURYN’s info meeting (and even before). Who do shareholders communicate with directly now to insist that our only asset, 5% of AURYN, is protected for current CDCH shareholders? Shareholders need to be represented on the BOD by someone that will voice and do what is in the interest of common shareholders, not just the “deep pockets” that have been operating to enrich themselves to put together a new deal this past year. We don’t need a repeat of the La Serena. The best move is to renegotiate with Maurizio directly and give him a percentage of shares to sit on the board to allow the same loan parameters as MDMN received. We don’t need another new venture to go wrong!
Glad I never bought into CDCH, MDMN nightmare is enough. Less transparent and swings were too much for me.
All I can do is pray that MDMN shareholders will benefit some way, get back to even or make some dough. Gold price is critical imo. Auyrn I think knows what will go down in this world of debt and currency devaluation race to the bottom.
Does the following statement bother other shareholders as much as it has troubled me?
It appears to be more than a simple oversight in the wording.
It may be too late to expect the Board to have a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct applicable to all of its directors, officers and employees. I just want everyone to recall, unless some things have changed for the better, “shareholder of record” referred only to those holding certificate shares when meeting announcements have been mailed out in the past. Are you presently a “shareholder of record” that has received notices directly from the company, or are you a “shareholder on record with the DTC” that has only received information from the OTC or company website? Who will actually be eligible for receiving these dividend shares?
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. http://cerrodorado.com/?p=425
Apparently, this is entirely as determined by Jose Manuel Borquez.
This may be a total non-issue, but considering all the mis-steps of the past, better to be safe than sorry. Immediate clarification is needed to avoid an inadvertent error in wording.
I do feel that all shareholders are meant to be included in any dividend that is declared.
If anyone has the direct contact information for Mr. Borquez please post!
He needs to hear from shareholders before the meeting announcement and that dividend declaration to “shareholders of record” is made!
I would feel much more comfortable if not only the dividend statement said "Cerro will make a dividend declaration to the shareholders of record, including beneficial owners of shares held in street name, as of the date that Cerro sends notice of it Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
You are probably correct, but would it hurt anything to clarify? Early versions of the by-laws that stated only those holding paper certificates, and since only those with paper certificates received notices, guess who voted? Maybe I don’t remember that correctly as I no longer have a copy. This may have been way back before on-line trading was widely used. If the by-laws definition has been updated to include shares held in brokerage accounts (beneficial share holders, i.e. street shares) in recent years I’d like to see it confirmed. Anyone have the most recent copy of the by-laws they can post? In any liquidity event that dissolves the company, shareholders of record with a certificate have 1st dibs on any cash doled out.
There is a much larger problem looming that all should be aware of. Am I correct that any “special dividend” as a placeholder for AURYN should only presently be issued in paper form if it is to protect those with shares in brokerages that have restrictions on companies that are not current in their filings? In order to protect those holding shares in IRA and ROTH IRA accounts only paper certificates would likely assure any dividend shares representing a pro rata share of AURYN shares are actually received. This restriction is for dividends that are held in a private company and would apply until such time that AURYN is listed as a publicly traded stock. Paper shares should be specified at the time the Annual Meeting is announced and dividends simultaneously declared unless AURYN a public free-trading company. This is necessary if all shareholders are to receive these dividend shares, IMO. Has this problem been contemplated by our BOD?
FYI: What is the difference between a shareholder of record and a beneficial owner of shares held in street name?
Shareholder of Record. If your shares are registered directly in your name with the Company’s transfer agent, Computershare Investor Services, LLC (“Computershare”), you are considered the shareholder of record with respect to those shares, and the Notice was sent directly to you by the Company. If you request printed copies of the proxy materials by mail, you will receive a proxy card. Beneficial Owner of Shares Held in Street Name. If your shares are held in an account at a brokerage firm, bank, broker-dealer, or other similar organization, then you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name,” and the Notice was forwarded to you by that organization. The organization holding your account is considered the shareholder of record for purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to instruct that organization on how to vote the shares held in your account. If you request printed copies of the proxy materials by mail, you will receive a vote instruction form. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_(AAPL)/What_Difference_Between_Shareholder_Record_Beneficial_Owner_Shares
I received confirmation of a clarification that eased my concerns quite a bit:
Shareholders of record (there’s only about 130 of them) are the only ones getting notice of the s/h meeting. All shareholders, including all on the NOBO list and all who opted out of the NOBO list, will be entitled to any dividend related to Auryn.
Everyone of us should have, by now, emailed them demanding that they do whatever is necessary to protect our 5% interest in Auryn. Kevin had alluded to what he thought we could do to get a similar deal like MDMN regarding the cash call.