If there was going to be a hault it probably would have happened. Trading seems to be happening orderly. It’s not chaos.
1 Like
Karl,
Now I’m kind of triply confused.
“the meeting is Auryn’s and not Medinah’s”
“the permits and mining operations are in Auryn’s name and have little to do with MDMN and this issue”
“Auryn…just lost…controlling interest in MDMN”
I can definitely see why Auryn would want to get this all straightened out pronto, but I can also easily imagine a number of very good reasons why Auryn might not be able to do that, and it’s absolutely easy for me to imagine why Auryn might (very wisely) postpone an informational meeting for shareholders…
We’ll know pretty quickly whether my prediction — and that’s all it is: a prediction — is a good one or yet another dime-a-dozen bad one.
— madmen
Madmen thank you for your prediction now give it a rest.
7 Likes
Actually I am optimistic, and curious to see how week treat’s us. We have the Chile Expo, Start up of the mine and the informational meeting all coming up, all should be positive for MDMN ( now that the kick from the horse is behind us (Thanks Easy)), let’s see what this week brings!
6 Likes
GCCapitol, I share the optimism in both the short and long term of our relaionship with Masglas/Auryn and maybe MDMN. Let me explain. I think the Chile Expo will bring some nice attention to the ADL/Auryn and I think it will be an eye opener that Auryn is close to production at the Caren, to followed by Fortuna et al.
However, JMO, the enthusiasm by “real” investors will be for what Masglas/Aurn is doing, not so much for what MDMN, in it state of dissaray. Again, JMO, if I were a investor and wanted to participate in the ADL, I would not want to participate via shares of MDMN. Rather I would want to invest in Auryn.
My guess is Auryn would be unwilling to sell any of their interest, so that leaves MDMN’s/CDCH’s ownership percentage. I am sure most wouldn’t want to part with any of our interest in Auryn, but I would certainly entertain selling a portion (5 points) of our interest in Auryn to gain some liquidity to take pay for some of the corporate governance issues that need to be addressed and have some working capital.
No, I don’t expect to get $50MM for the five points, but get a least a few million to stablize MDMN and allow the resources for the BOD to do what they have to do.
Again, I am sure this thought process is contrary to what many shareholders desire, but MDMN is a mess and capital is needed to clean it up. The last thing we need is more dilution.
Now folks, fire away at me.
http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&element_id=4414
- Trading and Quotation Halt in OTC Equity Securities
(a) Authority for Initiating a Trading and Quotation Halt
In circumstances in which it is necessary to protect investors and the public interest, FINRA may direct members, pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (b), to halt trading and quotations in OTC Equity Securities (as such term is defined in Rule 6420) if:
(1) the OTC Equity Security or the security underlying an American Depository Receipt (“ADR”) that is an OTC Equity Security (“OTC ADR”) is listed on or registered with a foreign securities exchange or market, and the foreign securities exchange, market, or regulatory authority overseeing such issuer, exchange, or market, halts trading in such security for regulatory reasons because of public interest concerns or for news pending; provided, however, that FINRA will not impose a trading and quotation halt if the Foreign Regulatory Halt was imposed solely for a regulatory filing deficiency, or operational reasons (“Foreign Regulatory Halt”);
(2) the OTC Equity Security or the security underlying an OTC ADR is a derivative or component of a security listed on or registered with a national securities exchange or foreign securities exchange or market (“listed security”) and the national securities exchange, or foreign securities exchange or market imposes a trading halt in the listed security (“Derivative Halt”); or
(3) FINRA determines that an extraordinary event has occurred or is ongoing that has had a material effect on the market for the OTC Equity Security or the security underlying an OTC ADR or has caused or has the potential to cause major disruption to the marketplace or significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process (“Extraordinary Event Halt”).
(b) Procedure for Initiating a Trading and Quotation Halt
(1) Upon notice of a Foreign Regulatory Halt or Derivative Halt from: (A) the national or foreign securities exchange or market on which the OTC Equity Security or the security underlying the OTC ADR is listed or registered, (B) a regulatory authority overseeing such issuer, exchange, or market, or (C) another reliable third-party source where FINRA can validate the information provided, FINRA will promptly initiate a trading and quotation halt in the OTC Equity Security. The commencement of the trading and quotation halt for the OTC Equity Security will be effective simultaneous with the issuance of appropriate public notice by FINRA.
(2) After FINRA initiates a halt in an OTC Equity Security as a result of a Foreign Regulatory Halt or a Derivative Halt, FINRA may continue the halt in trading and quoting in the OTC market for the OTC Equity Security until such time as FINRA receives notice that the applicable regulatory authority has or intends to resume trading in the security.
(3) After FINRA initiates a halt in an OTC Equity Security as a result of an Extraordinary Event Halt, trading and quotations in the OTC market for the OTC Equity Security may resume when FINRA determines that the basis for the halt no longer exists, or when ten business days have elapsed from the date FINRA initiated the trading and quotation halt in the security, whichever occurs first.
(4) FINRA shall disseminate appropriate public notice that a trading and quotation halt initiated under this Rule is no longer in effect.
(c) Violation of OTC Trading and Quotation Halt Rule
If a security is subject to a trading and quotation halt initiated pursuant to this Rule, it shall be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 2010 for a member:
(1) to effect, directly or indirectly, a trade in such security; or
(2) to publish a quotation, a priced bid and/or offer, an unpriced indication of interest (including “bid wanted” and “offer wanted” indications), or a bid or offer accompanied by a modifier to reflect unsolicited customer interest, in any quotation medium. For purposes of this Rule, “quotation medium” shall mean any: system of general circulation to brokers or dealers that regularly disseminates quotations of identified brokers or dealers; or publication, alternative trading system or other device that is used by brokers or dealers to disseminate quotations to others.
• • • Supplementary Material: --------------
.01 Discretion for Extraordinary Event Halts. FINRA may impose a trading and quotation halt in an OTC Equity Security pursuant to Rule 6440(a)(3) where FINRA determines, in its discretion, based on the facts and circumstances of the particular event, that halting trading in the security is the appropriate mechanism to protect investors and ensure a fair and orderly marketplace. As a general matter, FINRA does not favor imposing a trading and quotation halt in an OTC Equity Security and will exercise this authority in very limited circumstances. FINRA may also determine to extend an Extraordinary Event Halt that has been initiated pursuant to Rule 6440 (a)(3) to continue in effect for subsequent periods of up to 10 business days each if, at the time of any such extension, FINRA finds that the extraordinary event is ongoing and determines that the continuation of the halt beyond the prior 10 business day period is necessary in the public interest and for the protection of investors.
.02 Factors Considered. In determining whether to impose an Extraordinary Event Halt under Rule 6440(a)(3), FINRA will consider several factors in making its determination, including but not limited to: (1) the material nature of the event; (2) the material facts surrounding the event are undisputed and not in conflict; (3) the event has caused widespread confusion in the trading of the security; (4) there has been a material negative effect on the market for the subject security; (5) the potential exists for a major disruption to the marketplace; (6) there is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the security; and/or (7) such other factors as FINRA deems relevant in making its determination. FINRA may review all or some of these factors as it determines appropriate.
.03 Market-wide Circuit Breaker in OTC Equity Securities. In the event FINRA has halted trading otherwise than on an exchange in all NMS stocks pursuant to Rule 6121, FINRA also shall halt trading in all OTC Equity Securities until such time that the market-wide circuit breaker no longer is in effect for NMS stocks. Members must halt quoting and trading in all OTC Equity Securities as of the time the market-wide trading halt in NMS stocks is publicly disseminated.
2 Likes
Madman fails to realize the purpose of trading halts. Trading halts usually happen when there is some significant material information coming out and some individuals may have an advantage over others there is a halt to trading in order to put all investors on equal footing by making that information public. Well the information has been released to the market and once that information is out the halt is normally lifted. As a result the information on MDMN has been out for sometime ( the cat is out of the bag) as a result there is absolutely no reason to halt trading now since it would service no purpose relating to this event.
1 Like
A little inspiration for your day . . .
1 Like
Nothing confusing. Actually it is rather simple. .Auryn owns the claims and mining permits and it is their informational meeting. Masglas owns Auryn, and Masglas owns MDMN stock. The result of the fraudulent stock issuance of MDMN stock has no direct impact on Auryn, but has a direct impact on Masglas.as well as all MDMN shareholders.
The regulators (SEC) and SROs like FINRA have been rethinking the trading halt deployment parameters of late and have decided to lessen them because trading halts are very much a 2-edged sword. Their focus is on investor protection and the provision of an orderly marketplace. Gary and the new BOD got out ahead of this situation and said “don’t trust the 15 c 2-11s until we refile them”. This provided “investor protection” for any prospective investors thinking that there were 1.36 billion issued and outstanding. The “orderly marketplace” ensued by itself.
Even if the new BOD has a high certainty level that a lot of those inappropriately “issued” shares would be swiftly cancelled they had to put out the worst case scenario in order to provide “investor protection”. The fact that the previous BOD has already been replaced and that Medinah is basically a somewhat robotic “holding company” probably lessened the need for any trading halt. The trading volume tells us that any recipients of inappropriately issued shares are not pounding the market and trying to make a getaway. I would assume that plenty of deals have already been cut once the recipients of inappropriately issued shares, whether for debts or related to private placements, learned of the inappropriateness of the issuance.
I can’t imagine an honest creditor or honest private placement investor upon learning that his shares were inappropriately issued would say no, no, no, these are my shares no matter how inappropriately they were issued to me and I’m not going to wait around for any reissuance. If the shares are a product of a crime then you sure as heck better return them and wait for a legal reissuance if the facts dictate that to be appropriate. If a private placee received a humongous discount from market then red flags will obviously be raised and the placee might be put on the defensive.
A new BOD coming onto the scene and finding evidence of inappropriate prior behavior is not exactly a rarity in the OTC markets. The incoming BOD wants to paint the worst case scenario situation so that they would have plausible deniability for any future issues related to prior behavior.
Confession time…Who is buying today??? IMO, staying above .01 is critical, to avoid any more panic selling. The damage is now factored in the price. We have four things to look forward to. Production beginning, which is the most important. Presenting at the Chile Conference. And our informational meeting with Medinah and Auryn, which is now needed more than ever. Plus, any shares that we eventually do recover, are all a bonus…
1 Like
Only who on this board would be buying at a higher price to support the share price? Most, if convinced of the value, still try to get it at the lowest price possible.
I totally disagree with this, in fact not only would I keep the shares, I would sue MDMN for fraudulently issuing me questionable shares as I (being a converted or private placement investor) provided consideration (cash/debt forgiveness for these shares).
As far as a discount, I would take the greatest amount of discount I could get cleared. The name of game is get the higher ROI. One has to remember that there is substantial risk in providing any pink sheet with money and waiting a minimum of 12 months for the ability to covert into free trading shares, not to mention the expense of clearing, depositing and attorney opinion letter.
2 Likes
If venting and predictions are still allowed:
I regret not selling after the last SH meeting. I got a horrible vibe from Chapin who didn’t answer a question I posed directly, he beat around the bush (I don’t recall what it was) I left the meeting after that and sadly here I still am.
Three predictions: First, there’s only one bad apple. Second; that Les was getting his BS from Chapin. Lastly; the generous picture of Chapin the last few years has been a smoke-screen and that financial support has come from him selling the market what stolen shares he could without tanking it and that cloud has might have many looking the wrong direction right now.
1 Like
Make sure you distinguish between the market and the courts. Yes, a private placement will always try to get the best ROI, and even take advantage of a seller in desperate need, and others may even applaud your business acumen; however, this dynamic changes when brought to a legal arena. I posted previously RE a bona fide purchaser for value. In the legal realm, a deal of a lifetime makes the transaction susceptible of being labeled fraudulent, regardless of the actual knowledge and intent of the buyer. Once MDMN proves the shares where illegitimate (which should be easy), Then the burden shifts to whomever bought the shares to prove the affirmative defense of bona fide purchaser for value. It would be the buyer’s burden to prove the sale legit, not MDMN’s burden to prove it bad. The Buyer will have a difficult time with this burden of proof if they received a “deal of a lifetime.” Huge discounts and quick ROI’s will always be viewed extremely skeptically.
For example, in bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy trustee (the owner of a debtor’s assets) has the right to void a sale of transfer of a debtor’s assets and clawback the asset for the debtor’s estate unless fair market value given for the asset. I have had this happen with a client involved in a business bankruptcy. A business which I represented in bankruptcy, without my knowledge, sold 14 different leased vehicles to a new business created by the same shareholders. The buying business paid to the seller the value of the vehicles as stated at the end of the respective leases and took over the leased payments. The Trustee, upon discovering this act, was going to file both civil and criminal complaints against the shareholders and new company. I resolved the issue with the Trustee by negotiating a fair market value for the vehicles and having the shareholders and new company pay a significant additional sum to the selling company for the vehicles. Even though the shareholders, seller, and buyer, used a contractually designated value for the vehicles, the trustee would have argued the buyer was not a bona fide purchaser for value and would have won.
In this case, we have existing shareholders who could file a derivative shareholder action against MDMN and the buyer’s claiming the failure to pay good value for the securities (an equity count know as unjust enrichment). We also have the SEC who can make the same claim. The private placement buyer, even though they have a contract for the purchase, may still have the transaction voided as being not by a bona fide purchaser for value because of the large discount (and/or other matters) involved. The private placement, would then have a claim back against Les and/or MDMN for the money paid initially, but they would have the transaction voided and the shares returned; or, potentially they could pay an additional hefty sum to make the transaction legit, which MDMN would use to buy shares in the open market and retire. One should be able to recover the shares form a “deal of a lifetime” private placement even if sold to another party, as long as they weren’t deposited in a brokerage and sold into the open market. You could keep following the chain until you recover the shares. Using the stolen car analogy I used earlier, no matter how many different people buy the stolen car, its still stolen and can be returned to its owner. Only when a bona fide purchaser exists does the ability to clawback the asset stop.
1 Like
I am sick and tired of people offering predictions. The situation is what it is and it sucks but these doom and gloom predictions are simply pathetic.
Let’s see if we start production on schedule, how the South America convention goes and what kind of reassurances we get from the information meeting on October 1st.
Then we will have the suitable data needed to offer more sensible predictions.
6 Likes
I’m with you, Roberto…you couldn’t write this as a novel and get anybody to believe it…but the silver lining is the thieves have been exposed. Auryn is in charge, and some really good stuff (not just rumors) are in the offing in coming days. I, for one, would love to hear Bocanegra’s presentation. I have a suspicion that he’s gonna knock it out of the park…
People can predict all they want. Do I like what’s happened? Stupid question. Could any of us have known? Another stupid question. Will my life come to an abrupt end if I lose everything here. Stupid question #3. I’m actually more optimistic, guardedly so, than I have been for a long time. The right guys are on the case…
3 Likes
Ok, getting a little off topic, but just to continue the legal dialogue and specifically the discount. I could point to 50+ companies, some fully reporting, some not like MDMN that have convertible notes that settled for discounts ranging from 25% to 65%. The standard in the pinksheet market is 50% if you use lenders such Beaufort, Vires Versa, Blackbridge et. al. It would easy to provide reams of data supporting a large discount. Heck, the deal Chapin/Les did with Okanadian was for shares convertible at $.007 back in January when we were probably trading at least in the mid-1’s.
In terms of illegal share issuance, I had a debt holder, who knew I would not convert him, send the paperwork directly to the T/A which issued the shares, without my knowledge and without a board resolution as is required. I had the T/A and clearing firm freeze the shares, but my SEC counsel told me, eventually the clearing firm (Alpine) would release them. I settled for a nominal amount from both the T/A and the converter and the shares were released.
Below is SEC complaint against Genderme, a Canadian based toxic lender. The SEC charged them with being an underwriter as they bought and immediately sold billions of shares of pinkies. Gendarme entered into a settlement agreement, admitted guilt and many shareholders thought Gendarme would have to buy back shares. Nope, nothing happened except the companies got a global DTC lock as the DTC didn’t like fraudulently issued shares in Cede.
I could ramble on, but will end if the shares were issued illegally to a bonofide investor, the blame lies on company management. One silver of light is that many of these private investors sign a doc stating that they are accredited investors, once it is signed, no one actually investigates. If the bonafide purchaser is not, in fact, a accredited investor, then that could be interesting.
Gendarme Complaint.pdf (122.4 KB)
1 Like
I was just thinking if this criminal activity has been going for 4 yrs. just think how many people have been financially hurt by this latest Mdmn fiasco. I personally haven’t bought shares in the last 4 yrs and sold est. 1.2 million in that timeframe. I wonder like others who sold shares how much money they and I lost because of all the stolen shares flooding the market which caused the share price to be be lower. I realize the stealing and selling of shares escalated in the last 1 1/2 yrs. Lying and stealing is more prevalent than ever before. Just look at politics today.
2 Likes