The Mining Play

MDMN - 2016-04-18 Weekly Discussion

I think we are all waiting to see what evolves from the current MOU. That should let us know if you are right or wrong concerning the here and now. I look forward to you being wrong and I’ll guess that you are hoping you are too.:slight_smile:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Cerro Dorado Shareholder Meeting May 2, 2016 at 10:00 AM in Salt Lake City to elect five directors, reverse stock split, approve $1,750,000 Rights Offering.and approve pursuit of mining tailings reclamation.

Where do you see that info on Cerro?

Straight from a “Notice of Shareholders Meeting” just received it in the mail.

May I ask if you hold Cerro shares in street name or cert?

1 Like

Does anyone else want to see Bald Eagle on the BOD?

9 Likes

Can you give me the address of the share holders meeting? I may want to attend.

The CDCH information is on OTC Markets. http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CDCH/news

1 Like

A reverse split should not be approved under any circumstances. If shareholders are allowed to vote on this, I highly recommend they do not approve a reverse split.

1 Like

Why would they want to try and get it approved then? What is the benefit for them versus us?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

The Day Brothers have the control of the vote. They own 500,000 shares of preferred stock. Each preferred share is entitled to 1,000 votes. The five directors that will be voted on are listed in the Information Statement.

The elephant in the room is, who introduced these people to Patrick and the idea to let then take over CDCH? Any guesses?

Cerro is going to need full control for this because there’s no way any reasonable minded shareholder would approve Cerro trying to go after another project. In what world do they think this will be an alright thing to do?

Unfortunately, the Days (I assume that it is they that own the
500,000 preferred shares) will have 1,000x500,000 = 500 Million votes
compared to the 285,833,350 votes for ‘regular’ shareholders.

Which means that they have 63.6% of the votes. SIMPLE MAJORITY CARRIES THE VOTES !

Sorry folks, we’re out of the picture again !

Rod

Just as other posters here, I have no direct knowledge on how Medinah and AMC went about negotiating their current MOU and what the ultimate contract will read. However, I continue to remember the words provided to us by Volcan the poster and the information found in some of AMC’s updates. The history of the last year has demonstrated that AMC did have a performance/results based plan and they have continued moving forward on it and modifying it as results dictated. They appear to have very possibly found a way to both fund the mining operation and satisfy their partners, including Medinah, in moving forward toward their ultimate assumed goal of developing a world class mine. (or at least a really big one.) Some here have suggested that the BOD had the power to demand certain considerations from AMC and Medinah should have walked if AMC did not meet those demands. Other’s act as if Medinah had no control and simply had to lay down while AMC dictated their demands. Neither of these cases would be negotiations.

What many here fail to consider is that true negotiations require a minimum of two parties coming to an agreement where each party has something the other wants. Successful negotiations require that both parties conclude those negotiations with give and take to the point where both parties walk away satisfied that they each got the best deal available based on conditions that resulted in the agreement made. Successful negotiations for all parties is seldom through “power bargaining” but rather it is successfully accomplished while both parties remain focused on strategically working to accomplish a common goal.

In this case we have a situation where both parties, Medinah and AMC, share the same primary goal. Insure the property is developed to prove up the property as a great wealth of value and convert that value into a great wealth of profit.

If both parties, as partners, did set down with that goal as primary then the rest of the task would/should be easy. Simply come to an agreement where both sides of the table found a way to meet the primary goal under conditions that they all could live with.

I am encouraged when I read within Medinah’s update statements like "Asset Holding Company", “All percentage cash flows”, "will be disseminated to MDMN by AURYN Mining Chile", “on a quarterly basis”, “possibility of issuing cash dividends”, “initiating share buy-back programs”, “Medinah shareholders will share”, “free-carried ADL production revenues”, and “for many, many years to come.”

Personally, I’m hopeful that Medinah was telegraphing the future and all of the positives within their statements found in that update.

I understand that my hope could be misplaced, but if I’m going to look forward to anything other than success then there would be no reason for me to be here as a shareholder.

8 Likes

Would Mdmn be able to pull a R/S like Cdch is doing?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes

deleted by poser