Medinah Minerals (MDMN) - 2016 Q4- General Discussion

[easymillion]

Continuing the discussion from Medinah Minerals (MDMN) - 2016 Q3 - General Discussion (recovered):

@brecciaboy

Without having any ongoing operations Medinah didn’t suffer a black eye with any vendors of mining products, permitting authorities or anything that would affect the mining operations of AMC. One of the shareholders of a private company called AMC had some serious internal issues. The Chilean mining industry has relations with AMC only. We are fortunate that this transition to being a somewhat robotic “holding company” had already taken place.

From this time onwards, I believe that our focus should be on two items. The first is the “value” of those two pieces of paper as measured by mining industry standards and the second is the success of the clawback efforts to restore our shareholders’ original percentage ownership or as close thereto as possible. I don’t sense that the ability of this holding company/Medinah to sell any of its ownership interests have been compromised. I don’t think a mining major desiring Medinah’s assets cares a great deal about a holding company’s share structure issues. I do believe that the structure of any strategic alliance with a major in the short term would be more likely to be along the lines of an “asset sale” than a tender offer because of recent events at least until these events are fully addressed.

If anything, I would think that the financial incentives of Masglas/AMC and the average Medinah shareholder might have even tightened up a bit with this share structure issue. They have clearly taken the lead on addressing these issues in a professional manner and are highly financially motivated to rapidly seek redress for this behavior. Hopefully we can soon study the text of both Bocanegra’s dissertation on the ADL deposit and Maurizio’s dissertation on buying deposits in market downcycles.

In the above LENGTHY post, you mentioned a possible sale of part of Medinah’s ownership percentage of AURYN. Back in May when the completed “sales” agreement was announced a 5% additional equity stake clause for $50 million was included. It was speculated at the time that this was floating a price balloon out for any interested 3rd party operators. Medinah certainly wasn’t going to obtain $50M through dividends within a 5 year time frame specified in the Agreement.

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MDMN/news/Medinah-Minerals--Inc--Announces-Completion-of-Sales-Agreement-with-AURYN-Mining-Chile--SpA-?id=131937&b=y
(note the “Cautionary Statement – Forward-Looking Information”)

This (the clause for $50 million) did not make sense at the time of the sale to AURYN. It does seem to have more relevance under the present circumstances, IMO. We’ll know more after hearing what gets said to shareholders at the informational meeting.