Really guys? WTF?
Mods please delete every post with a personal attack or any comment that incites one. I’m unable to delete posts remotely without deleting the entire topic, which is an option now worth considering.
Please people, you don’t have to agree, but at least be respectful.
That statement was clearly referenced to future fading of the issue AFTER as much remediation as possible has occurred.
I sure hope it doesn’t remain an open infected wound forever, is that what you see?
I agree 100% because I don’t know the answers either. MDMN needs to fully disclose the facts, give us an independent investigation (I think I’ve made my opinion known about the current resigning of BOD members), and tell us what MDMN going to do to remedy the problem. Then do it!
RE the Nevada litigation, at a bare, absolute, minimum, MDMN should disclose a copy of the alleged contract signed by Price and Chapin for the transfer of the class C shares. No restriction exists on the disclosure of this alleged contract and no party could be harmed by its disclosure because it is a document and speaks for itself. I feel we need to know the terms of the alleged agreement MDMN has supposedly violated.
I agree.
Continuing the discussion from Medinah Minerals
(MDMN) - 2016 Q3 - General
Discussion:
[quote=“cornhuskergold, post:332,
topic:1377”]
15c-211, pg 18-19: “Between February and
March 2012, the Company offered and sold 7,350,000 shares of Class C
Redeemable, Convertible Preferred Stock to a total of eighteen individuals. …
The issuances were made to the following individuals: Juan José Quijano
Fernández, Larry Regis, Ian Dow, Vittal Karra, Pamela Fitzpatrick, Christopher
M. Day, Paul Donnelly, Mick Shindell, Donald R. Johnson, David Dessecker,
Anthony Arrigoni, John A. Toyer, Jr., Cynthia R. Shindell, Richard Bengard,
Gregory A. Chapin, Leslie Price.”
[/quote]
Now, when the document is brought out in discovery it should have some features resembling the structure of previous Class C Preferred stock that was issued.
Between February and March 2012, the Company offered and
sold 7,350,000 shares of Class C Redeemable, Convertible Preferred Stock to a
total of eighteen individuals. The shares were issued at $1 per share, and are
convertible to Common Stock at the ratio of 5 cents for each share of Common
Stock in year one, 10 cents for each share of Common Stock in year two, and
20 cents for each share of Common Stock in year three. They bear no voting rights,
and accrue interest at ten percent per annum. The issuances were made to the
following individuals:
Based on previous conversions, there is no way $100K is going to purchase and convert to 1.5 B common shares, regardless of conversion rate and terms of the conversion in the contract.
Hey Easy. Just a question about your post on the transfer of preferred shares to the 10 individuals incl Les. Is what you posted the evidence of where the criminally unreported 1.5 billion shares were created? And are these the shares which were never disclosed on the MDMN books?
And can anybody respond whether the Auryn presentations at the Chilean mining conference on Thursday mentioned anything about the MDMN share discrepancy ? I would assume not but just wondering.
I heard Auryn was working on a you tube stream of the conference.
No, it just demonstrates that based on previously written contracts for preferred shares the Okanadian claim of having purchased 100,000,000 Class C (?) Preferred Shares for $100K is ridiculous and should be adjudicated in favor of the company, IMO. It appears to be a scrivener’s error as claimed by the company. Regarding those 1.5 billion shares showing up in CEDE & CO the facts of when, who and to whom they were delivered has yet to be shown.
Only 3 weeks till the meeting, can we maintain a civil form till then , course if we get news production has started that should help reduce stress levels .
Ahhhh, civility. What a pleasant thing to see…
Aaaaw C’mon, what fun is that!!
Just kidding😃
Will be nice if the hostility can be tempered at the info meeting if prior board members have the integrity to show up to help explain what happened…both with the fraudulent share issuance and the subsequent activities since the discovery.
Once upon a time, before the mess up that erased the thread, there was a feature built in the system that:
At the bottom of the opening page, in the Suggested Topics section, did show in blue any thread that had new posts since the last visit,
Had a number (in blue color) at the end of the thread showing the number of new posts posted since the last visit, and
On any new visit, was set to automatically display and start from the last post read in the earlier visit.
Is it asking too much to restore those features as well so that we can all live happily ever after?
And while your at it could you find the restore button for this whole investment so we can all live happily ever after? TIA, Optgirl.
Wouldn’t that be nice Optgirl1, Albireo, I still have that option, please contact me after refreshing your page if that still occurs
… Thanks
Could someone set up a survey to see how many are going to the Auryn presentation in Las Vegas?
Thanks
It seems to be working the way it was. Thank you.
ARE THERE SECOND CHANCES IN THESE MARKETS AFTER SHARE ISSUANCE “ISSUES” LIKE THAT OF MEDINAH?
The Medinah share structure issue represents a very big deal and we shouldn’t try to minimize the seriousness of the allegations. As we await an update from the professionals commissioned to examine these transactions perhaps we should go one step further and think through the possible repercussions for the variety of updates we may end up receiving.
I think there are 2 obvious questions that come to the mind of a current Medinah shareholder or prospective Medinah investor who is concerned about the effects of these acts on her/his ultimate SHAREHOLDER REWARD.
The first of the 2 questions is: have the damages from this inflated “supply” variable we’ve been unknowingly experiencing for “X” amount of time already been felt from a share price depression point of view? In other words are the “damages” already baked into today’s market cap (about $32 million) “cake”? I think the answer here is at least partially yes because the purchasers of and recipients of the inappropriately issued shares have for the most part already placed them into “street name” for resale purposes as per the NSCC records indicating 2.2 million Medinah shares sitting at the NSCC in “Cede and Co’s” name. Back when we thought that there were 1.36 billion shares I/O there were about 900 million held at the NSCC.
Thus about 1.3 billion of the 1.6 billion shares inappropriately issued landed at the NSCC and represent the additional readily sellable (the NSCC doesn’t accept restricted shares) “supply” variable interacting with the “demand” variable to discover the appropriate share price via the “price discovery” mechanism. Unless some currently “restricted” shares from these particular share issuances become unrestricted and are sent into “street name” at the NSCC then yes I think it is safe to say that most of the “damage” is already incorporated into today’s market cap of about $32 million. I would think that by now the news of these share issuances has landed at about any doorstep that they will eventually land at and the future 15 c 2-11s will take over as the guide to the current number of shares I/O. I’m not ready to go out on a limb and suggest that any future share cancellations are going to result in an upwards pop in the share price, however. Today’s market cap might factor in the perception that “X” amount of the inappropriately issued shares will end up being rescinded.
The second question is are any damages related to this share price depression and to the heretofore unknown overinflated “supply” variable permanent or are the damages reversible.
The answer to this second question might have to do with whether or not Medinah can get their hands on some cash and take advantage of the inappropriate share price depression (“the damage”) NOW and reverse some of “the damage” by buying back and cancelling shares at artificially depressed prices induced by the alleged fraud. The timing of any proceeds from the Caren Mine production might be the best predictor of this possibility.
I think it’s fair to assume that this overall situation will be resolved in some fashion or another as the appropriate resolution process plays out. I would imagine that the final resolution is probably going to consist of some combination of share and perhaps monetary clawbacks, the rescinding of some deals, perhaps the surrendering of a portion of Nuoco’s 5% AMC holdings, various sanctions and/or punishments, etc. At the end of the day, Medinah will have “X” amount of shares issued and outstanding and a MINIMUM of a 25% stake in three-fourths of the deposit and a MINIMUM of a 36.25% stake in the remaining one-fourth.
I think one of the keys is to realize that the development of the mining assets owned by AMC is on a completely separate track than the resolution of the share structure issues of one of privately held AMC’s shareholders i.e. Medinah. I think it’s important to appreciate that a privately held company (AMC) predominantly owned by another privately owned entity (“Masglas”) has a publicly traded minority shareholder (“Medinah”) working through some very serious issues. I WOULD THINK IT SAFE TO SAY THAT THE MINING PROCESS WHOSE “OPERATOR” IS THE PRIVATELY OWNED “AMC” WILL CONTINUE WITHOUT AS MUCH AS A HICCUP. I’m not sure if it would make any difference if AMC were publicly traded or not.
From the placing of intermediate to long term investment bets point of view, to me the question becomes what is likely to fade away quicker, this share structure mess or the bona fides of the deposit and AMC’s ability to exploit it for perhaps 30-plus years. Clearly there is a time coming when this issue will be resolved and the merits of the deposit will be what people will want to talk about.
First and foremost, it’s important to keep in mind that the old Medinah management is already gone. They don’t need to be booted out in some type of prolonged legal confrontation. AMC is already running everything, they already control the Medinah BOD and Medinah is simply a robotic holding company with a checkered past and a couple of share certificates in a safe deposit box. As the largest shareholder of Medinah, AMC is even directing the resolution of the share issue efforts.
If Medinah were the mine “operator” in Chile with direct relationships with the Chilean mining and permitting authorities and various mining vendors then mining “operations” might be compromised in a situation like this. That would not be good because the “value” of Medinah’s equity ownership stakes might drop. This is not the case, however. The mining assets belong to AMC and Medinah is merely a passive equity minority stakeholder in AMC whose headquarters (Medinah’s) is now basically a safe deposit box with 2 paper certificates in it.
What the Medinah shareholders are anxiously awaiting for are the terms of the resolution of just how many ways the “value” of the MINIMUM of the 25% and 36.25% equity stakes is going to be divided up at the end of the day or in how any future cash dividend distributions will be divided up. If some of the 5% AMC ownership stake currently held by “Nuoco” becomes part of the resolution then the 25% and 36.25% stakes held by Medinah will need to be adjusted upwards. The increase in “value” of Medinah’s holdings would be determined by how many “extra” AMC ownership points they acquired via the resolution and what the value of each percentage point is determined to be by mining industry standards.
The bad news is that even higher nominal equity stakes in the mining district over and above the current 25% and 36.25% figures post-resolution of this mess are no doubt going to suffer a net dilution at the end of the day for current shareholders unaware of the inappropriate share issuances BUT NOT FOR FUTURE INVESTORS WHO WOULD BE FULLY AWARE OF THE CORRECT SHARE STRUCTURE. This is why it was critical for the new Medinah BOD to rapidly put out a PR warning not to trust the past 15c 2-11s when it comes to the issued and outstanding figure cited.
If the “value” of these equity ownership stakes held by Medinah goes up demonstrably because of the successful mining efforts of AMC then the detrimental effects of this admitted debacle will be greatly reduced FROM AN INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDER PROFIT/LOSS POINT OF VIEW BUT NOT FROM A “WE COULD/SHOULD HAVE MADE THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY” POINT OF VIEW. This is especially true if a large percentage of the inappropriate share issuance can be rescinded. I would think that the more egregious these inappropriate share issuances were the easier they will be to reverse because of certain leverage that could come into play.
The about to be revealed value of the ADL deposit is still going to be the PRIME DETERMINANT of current or future Medinah shareholder rewards and there is no way to side step the reality that for the current shareholders the sentiment that “we were robbed” to some yet to be determined degree will probably ring true.
I’m not sure if these share structure issues are going to change the “end game” as far as who ends up owning the Medinah equity stakes at the end of the day. I suppose the smart money would be on Masglas/AMC ending up owning 100% of the ADL mining district at the end of the day similar to how Masglas owns 100% of their other 11 Chilean deposits. A Medinah shareholder always needs to keep in mind the role of Masglas and what their intentions are as they are clearly calling the shots. I doubt that Medinah’s share structure issue has changed their overall game plan.
The question arises as to might the “stench” of Medinah’s share structure issue actually accelerate the eventual disposition of Medinah’s equity stakes via an asset sale so that it doesn’t linger and adversely affect Masglas’s reputation and/or game plan? I’ve been banging the drum for a very long time on the benefits of partial asset sales or the allocation of positive cash flow in order to effect share repurchases and cancellations especially if there is a “disconnect” between the “value” of Medinah’s 25% and 36.25% equity ownership stakes and Medinah’s market cap. Thankfully, this share issuance debacle does NOT affect the mining industry’s valuation of Medinah’s 25% and 36.25% equity stakes but it certainly has adversely affected Medinah’s share price and market cap.
If Medinah’s new management perceives that the black cloud of uncertainty has greatly thickened by these recent share structure developments and “the market” absolutely refuses to value Medinah shares in accordance with the UNCHANGED value of their mining assets divided by whatever their issued and outstanding figure comes in at then I would hope that management would consider pivoting in how they provide shareholders with their rewards by rapidly implementing a share repurchase program.
If there were such a thing as a “good time” for developments like this to be revealed then I suppose it would be in parallel with when this new “holding company” (Medinah) becomes cash flow positive via the Caren Mine going into production. This way any “disconnects” developing between asset values and market caps could be promptly taken advantage of via share repurchases and cancellations so that shareholder rewards can be realigned with the UNCHANGED value of Medinah’s assets that was NOT adversely affected by these unfortunate share issue developments.
This share repurchase “escape clause”, however, can only be accessed when the holding company becomes cash flow positive or gains access to cash perhaps through asset sales. It’s interesting how the fate of shareholder rewards, no matter how bad management screws up, always seems to circle back around to the bona fides of the mining assets. So yes, in my opinion, there are “second chances” in these markets when management screws up as long as 3 realities are present. The first is that the party that screwed up is not the “operator” of the mining operation (in this case). The second is that the “value” of the assets of the party screwing up did not get adversely affected by the screw up. This is not to say that reputational damage did not occur. Reputational damage can be reversed by buying back shares not trading at a level dictated by industry standard valuation modalities. The third is that positive cash flow provides funds that can be allocated to share repurchases and cancellations. The partial sale of assets might also be involved as long as the sales price is based on actual “industry values” and is not lessened by reputational damage. Sorry about the length but this material is a bit complex.
I certainly hope claw back goes further back than the latest 1.5B.
How about some serious examinations of non proven claims for outlandish amounts of shares.
I should have run when I first did a search on Les, and old fraud in his past. The type that would defraud elderly widows of their life savings is likely too corrupt to change.
Seems like the Bermuda shorts investigators blew it maybe?
Yes me too!
Just see’in if this is still working.