Is that Les hiding behind INTL mm? Now is your chance to get shares below half a penny.
Ooops to late…
News out… Merry Christmas Les!
Or the line I like from the Home Along Movie " Merry Christmas you filthy dog"
Nice work. Maybe Les can get a bar of soap for holiday gift so he can practice picking it up very carefully
Dentman, you had me howling…
Nice work indeed. A little merry merry from Santa…nice to see.
I was hoping for a news release related to the company having said that by the end of the year MDMN would be cash-flow positive.
Alright! Merry XMas to Les and all those John Does (you know who you are, LOL!) Remember, your attorneys will charge you extra for working over the holidays. LOL!
Now we have something which has some teeth. Finally an overview of the nature of the offenses against Les. It looks like they pled sufficient to get the case on file without going into each and every time, date, and place of violations, which will be fleshed out in the discovery process, and probably involve an amended complaint (as stated in paragraph 21 of the complaint). I have only read through it once, but it looks like they are covering all reasonable basis with this claim. As they continue to investigate, they will most likely begin identifying the various John Doe’s. They most likely only have banking and/or stock transfer info without specific names so they can identify the number of people/entities involved, but not actually each John Doe. As they secure more detailed discovery they should be able to link the two. Overall a very good start. We finally have something to give us an indication of MDMN’s direction with this matter; however, we need to continue to have full disclosures going forward. This process will not occur quickly, but should but looks thorough. Hopefully, Kevin’s work with MDMN keeps communication flowing and growing more substantive.
With this filing, however, I still don’t understand the logic on some the the procedural areas of having this claim in BC instead of Nevada, filing it as a new claim, instead of a counter-claim; but, these are just procedural issues which shouldn’t have an effect upon the substance of the complaint.
Hopefully as MDMN continue to discover relevant info, they will continue to disclose what they can, allowing the market to finally see MDMN turning the corner to a more profitable future. Now let’s get the news on the mining!
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone! Time to put thoughts of MDMN to the side for more important ones relating to family and friends. I hope everyone enjoys some well earned downtime! Unless you have younger kids, like I do, then enjoy the utter chaotic downtime!
By filing his original claim in BC didn’t he open this venue for MDMN’s claim? Though this may not be the case as it’s a new claim instead of a counter claim. I think the reason MDMN would want the case heard there is that BC is his business location and where he holds his assets. I can’t imagine the mess of trying to seize assets internationally from a local court ruling, he’d be able to fight that for years in multiple nations’ courts.
This makes perfect sense to me. Good thing Les filed in B.C.
Maybe that made the Legal Departments job easier…lol
For those of you who thought " where is Kevin? Why don’t we more information about…?" I guess you have the answer. I assume the amount of time this filing required was hundreds of hours.
Thank you Kevin!! Have a warm, safe, loving and peaceful
Holiday with your family.
Thank you Kevin!! Now where’s Auryn with there News??
Merry Christmas everyone!!
In due time, grasshopper. Patience, this is not the old MDMN
Agree with all your comments.
OBSERVATION: We are asking for a preliminary injunction on a couple of issues - maybe we should be asking for a TRO, and maybe there will be some short-term litigation on these issues? Maybe the “interim” injunction is the Canadian equivalent of a TRO?
Maybe because of the requests for injunction we will see some “action” on this case in the near term. Most American courts would REQUIRE that.
Ok, I’ll go back to my man cave. Certainly is exciting and rewarding to know that Mr. Price and company are finally going to held responsible and accountable for the damage done to shareholders and the company!!
Hope Les enjoys his lump of Coal from Medinah for Christmas. I have lost count of the number of lumps I’ve received from Medinah personally over the years. Will be interesting to see if Pamela does a plea deal and testifies against Les. At various times over the years, she expressed to many just how rotten a boss Les was to her. I doubt she wants to follow Les into bankruptcy and prison.
This is not a criminal case - yet. Or maybe you know something I do not? Perhaps our counsel could end up agreeing to dismiss the civil action against her in exchange for testimony against Les? But, it would have to be well worth it.
MDMN would have always had a right to file a claim against Les of GKX in BC due to the jurisdictional rules. I posted previously most “long arm statutes” require the plaintiff to file the lawsuit in the location the defendants have residency or where the cause of action arose. IMO, I felt MDMN could have given Les a big middle finger by making him go to Nevada to fight, but they must have had a reason for staying. And I agree with you it may be easier to collect and freeze assets, especially in an injunction matter, with the local court handling things.
RE the enforcement of foreign judgments, I posted previously on how both Canada and the US have reciprocity and are signatories upon the UN treaty RE judgment enforcements. It should be no harder to enforce a NV judgment in BC than to enforce a NV judgment in another US state. It is just a matter of taking the step to register. Once registered, the foreign judgment acts as if it was issued by the local court.
A TRO is an injunction, just a temporary one, whereas the preliminary injunction set forth in MDMN’s claim would be during the entire time the lawsuit remains active, terminating at the time of judgment. If an injunction survives entry of judgment and becomes part of the the judgement, then the court calls it a permanent injunction.
You also have the issue of proofs. Court are hesitant to grant injunctions unless the requesting party can show an right which would be harmed by continued bad conduct by the defendant and generally cannot be satisfied by the defendant paying money damages to plaintiff. For example, some one disclosing Coca-Cola’s secret recipe. They can apply to money based conduct, but the plaintiff would have to show continued and future harm by the defendant’s conduct. Its why MDMN alleged the constructive trust allegations. Constructive trust basically alleges the defendant illegally possesses plaintiffs property and must hold it in trust until the court can determine whether plaintiff or defendant gets the property. Even if Les keeps hurting MDMN while MDMN preparing the injunction, he has to hold the property and value of the property in trust.
MDMN has stated they do not have all of the details (ie: paragragh 21 and all of the John Doe’s). It would probably be pretty tough for them to support a TRO until they have more details. You really only get one bite at the apple with a TRO. You don’t want to half-a** it, get denied, and allow the defendant to keep a hurting you for the entire length of the case, get a judgment against him, but now he has liquidated all of his assets. Better to get the facts locked down solid, take a bit of a hit now through defendants continued bad conduct while your case is pending, let the defendant continue to act to hurt you, used the defendant’s continued bad conduct in the preliminary injunction hearing as further evidence as to why the injunction needs to be granted (ie: giving the defendant the rope to hang himself), and then increase your damage demand later. When litigating these types of matters, you need to make sure you know the answers to all issues and all questions and leave nothing to chance. Generally, if you can get a court to grant a preliminary injunction, you stand a good chance of winning the entire case. You would have had to present and the Court would have had to review an overview of your case to grant the preliminary injunction. If the Court felt it was sufficient for an injunction, barring the the defendant from acting/not-acting in some manner, why would the Court change its mind at trial? If MDMN says it doesn’t have the facts yet, and it did, I feel they shouldn’t press the issue of a TRO until know all the facts, too much risk at this time.[quote=“MikeGold, post:1353, topic:1528”]
Will be interesting to see if Pamela does a plea deal and testifies against Les. At various times over the years, she expressed to many just how rotten a boss Les was to her. I doubt she wants to follow Les into bankruptcy and prison.
mrbubba correct, it would not be a plea, it is a civil matter. She would admit liability. I hope all of the rats abandon the sinking ship. I have advocated for this before. You hit them hard, make them spend $$ litigating, and then you negotiate from a position of strength. Make deals with some of the lower level offenders to small damages in exchange for their truthful statements against Les and his cronies. Use this info to get your preliminary injunction against the biggest offenders.
RE the issue of bankruptcy, because MDMN has alleged different fraud based counts, none of the defendants should be able to discharge these matters in bankruptcy as long as MDMN objects to the bankruptcy. Generally allegations of fraud, false pretenses, or false representation cannot be discharged; BUT, only if the creditor objects to the discharge and files an adversary proceeding. If the creditor sits on its hands, it could be discharged. MDMN just needs to make sure they object in a timely manner if one of the defendants tries to file a bankruptcy. I am not familiar with BK proceedings in Canada, but I would guess they are similar to the US.
I agree with MG & Mrb, lets hope the whole pack of “john does” turn on Les, chew him up and spit him out.
The tree is shaking, I wonder if any more shares will fall out a la Karra.
Big thanks to Kevin for this informational “present” and to his efforts all round.
Happy holidays to all, and though we MDMN shareholders are in a mess, spare a thought for the folks that are less fortunate than we.