I know you and rayfer (maybe you are rayfer), are staunch supporters of Les. I am curious. Do you believe him?
I agree, just saying what he said Would not talk about it I must have got him off guard or he thought I was someone else.
Iām not rayfer, and no I donāt believe him. I must have hone 10 times before he answered Not is Sec., so I got him off gourd, and we are not close.
Based upon a review of the docket, Gary Goodwin tried to have his case dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Les Price filed a similar motion after Goodwinās motion set for hearing. At the hearing on 8/9, the Court denied the motion specifically holding the Nevada court had jurisdiction over Goodwin under the Nevada corp statutes and due process grounds had been satisfied. Subsequent to this ruling, Les withdrew his motion. Les and MDMN have answered the complaint. Goodwin has not yet answered the complaint.
Gregory Chapin, Jose De Romano Letts, Vittal Karra, and MMC have not yet been served and the Plaintiff has attempted service through the Hauge (as applicable) and needs more time to serve these parties.
I find it interesting to note MDMN, Gary Goodwin, and Les Price all have the same attorney. MDMN most likely has an obligation to defend its officers and directors, but at the time of this transaction in January 2016, I thought Les had no connection to MDMN. A quick review of MDMNās 2015 annual report at http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=MDMN&id=151432 does not even have Lesā name listed. I wonder who is footing the bill for the attorney; and, based upon the most recent disclosure from MDMN, it would seem a direct conflict of interest may exist with one attorney representing Les Price and MDMN. As an attorney myself, I would never represent multiple defendants who may have divergent interests unless I had a signed waiver of conflict letter; and, I would only do so if the conflict would be a minor one not necessarily related to the litigation. MDMNās defense in this case could be throwing Les under the bus. If so, no way one attorney could represent both of them. In the instant case, with Les not even being a BOD or officer of MDMN, I donāt know why MDMN is allowing the same attorney to represent MDMN and Les. If someone has the current BODās ear, these issues need to be raised ASAP.
Also, found it interesting the Court on 8/9 held as follows: āThe COURT DIRECTED counsel to ensure their clients were aware of their duty to preserve evidence, which should include discussions regarding document destruction and e-mail retention.ā Again, based upon the most recent disclosure by MDMN of the fraudulent stock transactions, if someone has MDMN BODās ear, they need to immediately send discovery requests to Les Price. MDMN should be able to get all of Les Priceās emails etc. at least back until January 2016. Also see above RE conflict of interest with the same attorney (one of the reasons why we take conflicts seriously).
Lastly, based upon the dates set for pretrial conference and trial, based upon my experience, these dates are automatically set by the court and do not have any real meaning right now. The Plaintiff has specifically requested a delay in the case to finalize serving the remaining defendants and has asked the court to delay discovery proceedings (depositions) for the the defendants who have answered until they get service. With discovery not even started yet, it will, IMO, take well over 18+ months before this case ready for a trial. Most cases just the discovery portion takes at least a year. One bright light is a settlement conference for 10/24/16. This date may help case along, especially because of the current situation with MDMN.
If anyone in Las Vegas, they can go to the Clark County Nevada Circuit Clerks office and get copies of the pleadings (ie: complaints, motions, etc.) They are all public record and accessible by anyone. It would be interesting to see the allegations made and especially MDMNās and Lesā answer to the complaint.
8 Likes
Would it not be a nice gesture from us to Auryn by doing a reverse stock split to bring us back to $1.5B and afford us an extremely valuable perception of where we are at/accountability?
All excellent points, thanks for your comments
I donāt see the need to discuss a reverse split until we know if or how many shares can be cancelled or the level of restitution that can be attained. Until then, it is premature.
1 Like
Sometime, with all that is going on regarding alleged stock issuances, Finra, which requires a five year history of stock issuances, most likely would not approve a reverse split.
My fear is that if MDMN needs additonal capital, we may see a raise of the A/S which does not need Finra approval, only majority vote by shareholders, which I donāt know where control (50.1%) lies anymore.
Iām not sure how you āknowā this but from what I have seen, rayfer was not a āsupporterā of Les but rather a shareholders that asked questions of Les and relayed the answers he was provided. Rayfer often relayed his suspicion of the answers provided by Les and almost always reminded everyone he was just the messenger, not the author of the answers, so the receiver was responsible to evaluate Lesās answers and, knowing the source, take those answers and assign whatever value the receiver deemed appropriate.
4 Likes
The chances of an increase in the shares authorized is somewhere been zero and none. I am confident my statement is correct.
If my memory serves me correctly, shareholders got stuck with the legal bills for Lesās defense during the Bermuda Short Sting too. In that case, the Feds caught Les trying to get personal kickbacks for agreeing to a jv deal they made up. The Feds botched the case and Les got off the charges. I can only imagine how mdmn would be doing today if the Feds had been better at their job back then.
There is no way that shareholders should be stuck with legal fees defending anyone who tried to line their pockets at our expense board member or not.
1 Like
In regards to paying Lesā legal fees and having the same counsel, I think we have to remember Bermuda Short 2 (BS2) was just recently discovered. I say this because the Company issued the second quarter fins with the wrong numbers. They would not have done that if they knew of BS2.
I am sure, Les will be left to fend for himself on the Okanadian matter. As Jak167 pointed out, the conflicts are too overwhelming and I am sure the judge will agree when MDMN counsel files the motion to withdrawl as counsel for Less and MMC Mining.
MMC hasnāt been served yet, according to the docket. RE the attorney withdrawal, it would be the only thing to do. Unfortunately, because the attorney has represented both MDMN and Les he would have to withdraw for both parties, and could represent neither party due to having confidential info RE both because of his representation. MDMN would have to get a new attorney too.
My question again goes to how MDMN and Les have the same attorney in the first place if at the time of the alleged incident January 2016 to date Les has never been an officer of BOD member. The fact they have the same attorney shows the current BOD of MDMN dropped the ball big time. It should never have happened at all. Period. Then add on the potential that MDMN paying the attorneyās fees, which would also pay for Lesā attorneyās fees. Wow! Hereās the model rule RE representation Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients Nevadaās adopted it. I donāt know how MDMN BOD ever allowed one attorney to represent them both, regardless of whether they had discovered the newly disclosed shenanigans. If you are talking about current BOD members of officers, oftentimes one attorney represents both as long as no specific conflict issues exists. But to have the same attorney as a third party, not related to MDMN at all? Not good.
This is why we need to see the allegations in the complaint against MDMN and Les. If they are in any way connected (which I donāt know how they couldnāt), then one attorney should never have represented both. Direct conflict on its face.
2 Likes
I agree, the only thing I can think of is that Les was (ahem) reportedly a ātrusteeā for MDMN. That then begs the question, what was a trustee doing involved in share issuances.
Letās just say, corporate governance was not the Officers and Directors strong suit.
Kevin must be saying what did I get myself into. Kevin what are your thoughts on all this?
1 Like
Unfortunately for Chapin, complicit or not, heās got the biggest target on him for simple gross negligence and failure of oversight, fiduciary responsibility to shareholders as a NA director, etc. Iām also guessing he has the most assets to lose, to your point. Even if he gives up all of his ownership in MDMN, Nuoco, and CDCH (which heāll probably do to try to reduce his liabilities) he runs the risk of subsequent class actuons. If he was totally oblivious to what was going on I have a tiny bit of empathy for the guy but, at the same time, I remember all to chastising shareholders for their constant whining, while defiantly stating ādone, done, doneā and pushing forward he authorisation of 3B shares . Heās in ādeep, deep, deep.ā
9 Likes
This is a HUGE financial setback for me personally. Like myself, I suspect that many here are in over their heads. Before this, I really thought that breaking even or a small profit was a real possibility in the next year. Now, I just donāt know. Obviously, this will impact those who canāt afford the loss more than others. How are those investors dealing with this today? Feel free to share. I could use some coping skills right now. Thanksā¦
2 Likes
Nothing has changed for bright prospects for Medinah. Much of the damage to the share structure will be undone. Most of the effect it had on the stock share price was already done quite awhile ago although most didnāt understand the cause.
Cash flow from Auryn should be able to eventually get Medinah to an exit price most need with some dividends to boot while we wait.
I believe Auryn has a whole series of positive announcements to make starting in the very near future.
3 Likes
Shareholders would welcome a series of positive announcements anytime now!
3 Likes