Yes. That is what has been claimed.
Couldnât shareholders, apart from (or in addition to) MDMN, sue Les Price for damages? I would think Greg Chapin in particular would want to go after him.
3 Likes
How about Auryn they hold shares of Medinah and got screwed like us. With them and us this SOB will want to throw out his claim and call mercy.
I hope Kevin can shine some light as to whatâs happening. We need to go after him.
I would think Les Priceâs company has retained plaintiff counsel on a contingency basis for what appears ostensibly to be a relatively simple debt collection matter. He has probably provided his counsel with documentation which would tend in reason to establish a bona fide claim for payment. It will be interesting to see MDMNâs answer to the suit and counselâs reaction upon learning that the matter will actually NOT be a routine collection matter and will presumably be litigated.
All the allegations in the suit concerning âacknowledgementâ are in reference to the statute of limitations, the laws of which differ depending on which country/stateâs laws are applicable in the first place. This suit is fraught with issues such as jurisdiction, conflict of laws, venue, etc., all of which will have to be addressed before it even reaches the merits. Iâm inclined to believe the suit is a procedural move to gain leverage with the trier of fact (i.e. I filed my suit first, therefore the countersuit against me must simply be retaliation - very rarely does this hold water). Either way, get prepared to wait while the attorneys have fun.
1 Like
Les is a pathological, litigiously inclined individual. He may think this lawsuit will give him some leverage but I would argue that any criminal proceedings against him will be accelerated due to this (miscalculated) move. The spotlight on him only grows brighter with this suit. What an idiot. I can only hope that the folks on this board who so vehemently defended this dope are making some amends by providing the necessary folks with all of their correspondence/emails. Ray, MGold, Doc, etc all can be very helpful in reducing our legal bills and burying Les once and for all.
The blame game amongst shareholders is no longer relevant. Please keep in mind that emails from associates of Les (and JJ) can also be useful in clawing back shares and moving us beyond this shameful chapter of Medinah. Onward and upward.
16 Likes
Best time to be patient before calling for counter suits. Let them gather all the information to hang the guy and formulate the counter attack.
1 Like
Done Deal, no offense, but you still seem to have the ownership structure mixed up.
Auryn does not own any mdmn.
Auryn owns and operates the ADL and area claims.
Mdmn owns stock in private company Auryn.
Masglas is a private investing company headed by Maurizio Cordova.
Masglas owns several mining claims in Chile in addition to majority of Auryn.
Masglas as a company and several of its principals or related individuals personally have purchased mdmn stock, including JJâs.
Forgive me for not listing all the percentages here.
2 Likes
Two ways exist for any plaintiff to recover civil damages against a defendant, breach of contract or tort. Breach of contract speaks for itself. Plaintiff alleges defendant breached a written or oral contract and the plaintiff should get specific performance of the contract or damages. Generally punitive damages and attorneyâs fees are not recoverable by a plaintiff in a breach of contract action. RE Les, MDMN, and the shareholders, the only reference which I know RE a contract, written or oral deals with Lesâ ability to communicate with the transfer agent and a representative of MDMN. No contract exists between Les and the shareholders. No privity of contract exists. The shareholders would not be able to bring a breach of contract action against Les, but MDMN may file a breach of contract action, depending upon the existence of the written or oral contract to deal with the transfer agent.
This fact means the shareholders would only be able to go after Les for a tort. Two types of torts exist, negligence and intentional (each have sub categories, which I wont get into). Negligence torts require a duty of care, a breach of the duty, damage suffered to the plaintiff, and proximate cause (the negligence directly or indirectly caused the damage). These types of tort most often arise from vehicle accidents, slip and falls, and malpractice cases. With Les, nothing he did could be equated to negligence. He didnât accidentally steal shares, he didnât forget to turn off the share printing machine, he acted with intent and purpose. Negligence torts would not apply to Les.
Shareholders would then be left with intentional torts, most particularly fraud based torts (again different types exist, which I wonât get into). We can all agree Les acted with intent in a manner to defraud. He stole shares to his own benefit, to the detriment of MDMN. Do you notice how I said MDMN and not shareholders? Any claim by shareholders against Les directly for fraud would have a difficult time due to the existence of MDMN. MDMN is a corporation. A legal fiction exists which holds corporations in the same standing a real people in many ways. They can hold title, they can enter into contracts, they can sue, etc. Due to this legal fiction, MDMN stands between the shareholders and Les. The damage done by Les occurs to MDMN, not the shareholders directly. A reduction in value of the shares of stock damage MDMNâs value, allowing MDMN to make the claim. Legally, the shareholders are only affected indirectly. Therefore, MDMN has the right to go after Les, not the shareholders.
Ways may exist to get a direct fraud case by the shareholders against Les, maybe due to his public statements, which may be considered fraud in the inducement. He kept pumping stock so shareholders would buy shares so he could sell his illegitimate shares, but it would take some effort to gather the relevant facts to support these types of claims. In other words, it wouldnât be easy due to having to show Les committed his fraud directly to the shareholder(s), not to MDMN or MDMNâs value. If a shareholder can show direct, intentional acts or omissions from Les with Lesâ intent to harm the shareholder directly, then the shareholder may be able to maintain a fraud based lawsuit against Les. But how does the shareholder prove Les intended to defraud the shareholder directly? Now you know why I said it would be difficult. MDMN has a much easier time proving intent because stealing corp shares and selling them directly damages the corpâs value, transferring that value to Lesâ pockets. Heck, MDMN may even be able to use the legal principal of res ipsa loquitor âthe act speaks for itselfâ to prove Lesâ intent. Us lowly shareholders, not so easy.
Shareholders do have two other ways to litigate the damage to their share value, but neither of them would be worthwhile right now. The first way would be a shareholder suit against MDMNâs current and former BOD/officers for their breach of fiduciary duty (we discussed this duty in depth previously in this thread). This claim would redress the loss of shareholder value due to the improper actions of the BOD/officers in running MDMN and policing Les; but we are talking about suing MDMN at a time MDMN doesnât need another lawsuit and needs to be focused on mining and increasing shareholder value. The second way would be a shareholder derivative lawsuit. This type of lawsuit allows a shareholder to bring a claim on behalf of the corporation. For instance, Greg could file a lawsuit against Les on MDMNâs behalf titled MDMN v. Les. Unfortunately, to bring this type of suit, the shareholder would have to jump through many hoops. Most importantly, the corporation would decline to bring any action after the shareholder makes a formal request. To maintain this type of suit usually requires a really bad and adversarial relationship between the shareholders and the corpâs management. Again, pushing MDMN away from its needed focus of mining and increasing shareholder value.
IMO the best bet shareholders have would entail waiting to see the claims MDMN brings against Les and the evidence they uncover from the audit and the basic discovery process. If this audit and discovery shows Les may have acted to harm shareholders directly, then the shareholders could then jump into MDMNâs case with a cross-claim against Les.
Sorry for the long response, hopes the above helps.
15 Likes
Yes, I agree with your analysis.
Thank you for the detailed response. It was VERY informative and helpful.
4 Likes
Ray
Can you post the the rest of the article ?
Thanks, Rod
Medinah Minerals Inc (U:MDMN)
Shares Issued 249,475,716
Tuesday October 25 2016 - Street Wire
by Mike Caswell
Medinah Minerals Inc., the pink sheets listing once run by North Vancouver accountant Les Price, is facing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia over a $2,017,066 unpaid debt. (All figures are in U.S. dollars.) The suit was filed by GXK Ventures Inc., a private entity that Mr. Price controls. GXK claims that it paid Medinahâs bills over a nine-year period, but the company has not reimbursed the money.
The allegations are contained in a notice of claim filed at the Vancouver courthouse on Oct 18, 2016. According to the suit, GXK entered into an oral agreement with Medinah in April, 2007, in which GXK would make payments on behalf of Medinah and would pay Medinahâs debts. GXK expected that it would be reimbursed for any amounts owing, plus interest of 10 per cent per year. According to the suit, the deal was made between Mr. Price and three officers and directors of Medinah.
In the first 15 months of that agreement, GXK spent $794,106 of its own money on Medinahâs expenses, the suit states. GXK claims that Medinah acknowledged this debt through a promissory note dated Aug. 17, 2008. According to the suit, GXK continued to pay Medinahâs debts and made other payments on its behalf up to June 30, 2016. Medinah repaid part of the money from time to time, but never the full amount.
The amount owing as of June 30, 2016, is $2,017,066, the suit states. GXK is seeking the court-ordered payment of that money, plus interest at 10 per cent. Vancouver lawyer Ori Kowarsky of Kowarsky Ritson LLP filed the lawsuit on GXKâs behalf.
Medinah has not yet filed a response. The stock is still an active trader, but has been in subpenny territory for about two months. It closed Tuesday at 0.85 cent.
Mr. Price was the chief executive officer of Medinah until 2001, and (as is apparent from the lawsuit) remained involved with the company for many years after
1 Like
I donât know where they got the shares issued amount.
3.5 million on the ASK .01
DITTO what Hurricane Rick posted!!!
Was MDMN current on itâs debt when it issued stock to repay GXK Ventures Inc. - $1,142,336 in 2012? Who was keeping the books? Note, during 2012 the 200 MA was around a dime. The conversion rate on the preferred stock during year 1 after issuance was half that at 0.05 and went down in value year 2 and 3. The maximum amount of stock convertible to GXK would have been 23 M shares during year 1. It appears there was a maximum number of shares convertible this 1st year of around 161 M shares for the $8,030,098 received at $1 per preferred share issued that was on the books. Is this the time period when Les was lining his own pockets selling shares for a nickel to private investors? The forensic investigation should reveal the time of issuance of âoff the bookâ share issuances made by Les from the TAâs records. These went (eventually) to the DTC, but did not show up on any company filings submitted to the OTC. 1.5 Billion undisclosed shares issued could only have been sold by Les in hopes of destroying the company and making it disappear, IMO. Tortuous interference? Below is a chart for all of 2012:
Really? You canât believe a con man like Les (which many of us have known or suspected for years) has done this? Itâs been the most predictable turn of events possibly EVER for MDMN. That crowd shouting that management were clowns and crooks were not kidding for the last several years.
1 Like
An additional thought to my last post. Was the Okanadian contract overseen by Les? Is it possible that what was attributed to as a simple scrivenerâs error in reality is a devious last ditch effort to sink the company ⌠an attempt to hide other crimes committed? Naw, that couldnât have anything to do with it.