Guantanamo for that POS
1 Like
Lesters best friend is going to be a mouse!
1 Like
Taking the 12.4 T and using the 11.5 gpt Gold and 31 gpt Silver a ballpark estimate of the first truck ā $5500 gold $200 silver high end. Using those same rates with the additional truck loads of 63.6 T the value would be about $28K gold and $1K silver. Obviously thatās not a valid calculation but just trying to get a general idea of things. Any of you real mining guys want to give it a go?
My point was Iām hoping we did our research first to determine whether itās even worth pursuing the potential judgment defendants - it would be nice to know that up front, rather than AFTER we have paid attorneys for possibly obtaining a nice judgment.
Also, offshore trusts usually have some kind of duress clause, which provides that in the event the trustee starts thinking some creditor (or judge) is trying to collect money from the beneficiary then no transfers will be made (or alternate transfers could be made). So, all a judgment debtor has to do after receiving an judgment is write a letter to the trustee with a copy of the judgment enclosed, asking the trustee to send money. Then, the judgment debtor can inform the judge that he has āmade demandā of the offshore trustee to comply but he (the trustee, not the judgment debtor) refused. Will a judge hold a judgment debtor in contempt for that? I guess it might depend on whether the offshore trust was formed before or after the judgment debtor first learned he might have some legal liability to this particular plaintiff. And, lest a judgment creditor thinks he can simply venture over to the offshore jurisdiction to make inquiries, at least some of them make it a crime to even inquire about offshore accounts within their jurisdiction. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Agreed. I have advocated for hitting them hard and getting them to the table to disclose to MDMN their level of involvement. Most likely, IMO those who are the real crooks will not take MDMNās offer to settlement, but will fight, while those who were just greedy bastards, will look for the cheapest way out in settlement. If they disclose in full their involvement, then MDMN knows whether it would be worth pursuing judgment or settlement. IMO, most likely the later. I doubt Mr. Price would sit down and look for a settlement at this time, especially after his behavior to attack MDMN with lawsuits after he stole from MDMN. MDMN gets the small fish resolved through settlement, gets full disclosure and agreements to cooperate against the real crooks.
Yes, a court could and in a case of the scope supposedly happening with MDMN would probably do so, IMO. Remember, being jailed for contempt has nothing to do with failing to pay the judgment, but failing to follow court orders. If the court order Mr. Price, or any defendant, to do something, and that defendant refuses, the court can punish them through contempt until such time as they comply. In a citation proceeding, you are not demanding a defendant turn over their asset, only disclose the existence of the asset.
In a case of a duress clause, requests for disclosure of the the bank account info and trust agreement are not attempts to collect or attempt to force the off-shore entity to take any action. The citation doesnāt go to them, it goes to Mr. Price. Mr. Price, not the off-shore entity, would be required to provide the info. Once MDMN gets access to the trust document, then creative drafting could allow the disbursement or recovery of the trust proceeds without violating the terms of the trust agreement.
Lastly you run into the issue of the various Fraudulent Transfer Acts (the statutory laws I referenced in general previously). These laws exist in the US, Canada, and also off-shore jurisdictions like the Caymans in one form or another. Basically they hold a defendant (debtor) cannot avoid his plaintiff (creditor) by transferring the defendantās assets into an asset protection trust, off-shore, account, or another person to entity. No set time frame exists to trigger the application of the act, but generally goes from when the defendant had knowledge of the creditorās claim. In MDMNās instance, this could go way back into the past when Mr. Price knew MDMN would have a claim because he was stealing from them. Using the common law and Uniform acts, the US tags them with badges of fraud. The common law badges of fraud: (i) lack or inadequacy of consideration; (ii) family, friendship or close relationship among the parties; (iii) retention of possession, benefit or use of the property; (iv) financial condition of the defendant before and after the transfer; (v) existence or cumulative effect of a pattern of transactions or a course of conduct after the onset of financial difficulties; (vi) general chronology of events; and (vii) secrecy of the transaction. The Uniform Fradulent Transfer Act badges of fraud: (i) was the transfer or obligation to an insider; (ii) did the debtor retain possession or control of the property after the conveyance; (iii) was the transfer or obligation disclosed or concealed; (iv) was the debtor sued or threatened with suit before the conveyance; (v) did the conveyance consist of substantially all of the debtorās assets; (vi) did the debtor abscond; (vii) did the debtor remove or conceal assets; (viii) was the value of the consideration that the debtor received reasonably equivalent to the value of the conveyance; (ix) was the debtor insolvent at the time of the conveyance or shortly after; (x) did the conveyance occur shortly before or after the debtor incurred a substantial debt; and (xi) did the debtor convey the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor?
Overall, virtually every jurisdiction will bend over backwards to hold an asset protection trust invalid as it goes directly to frustrating the laws of that jurisdiction. Anyone counting on an asset protection trust will most likely be in for an expensive battle as one court after another invalidates it. Plus, the validity of the asset protection trust rest squarely upon the settlor (person creating the trust) having no control what-so-ever over the trust, its assets, and the ability to distribute its assets.
In MDMNās case, IMO, any assets Mr. Price would transfer to an asset protection trust would have come from Mr. Priceās fraudulent activity in the theft of MDMN shares/money. IMO, he will have a hard time justifying the validity of the source of funds used to create and fund the asset protection trust. Plus, I really donāt see Mr. Price giving up any and all control over these assets he worked so hard to steal from MDMN.
IMO, Mr. Price may or may not have tried to hide assets off-shore, but the court has jurisdiction over him. If MDMN secures a judgment against him, IMO, the courts can and will enforce their judgment against him. So unless he wants to spend a lot of time in an orange jumper, eating s**t on a shingle, and making sure to not drop the soap, MDMN would have a good chance of recovering anything he tried to hide overseas. But, we shall see. Right now I feel very positive about the first settlement of a smaller player and the effect of the first rat jumping ship. I hope MDMN gets a few more to jump ship as well of the next month or so. Then we will see where everything goes.
8 Likes
Thanks Jak for all of your legal analysis. It is a very interesting tutorial. It looks to me as the first domino fell recently more will follow, one way or the other.
1 Like
Some folks out there have questioned whether the expense of the lawyers and suit will be offset by any monetary judgement we may get. But getting shares back is far more important than judgments.
The company just received back 184 million shares because we took action to go after Price and company. We just increased the potential top end price by more than 6%. Thatās going to be far more valuable than any monetary judgment we may get as well as reestablishing credibility for the company.
2 Likes
Never discount the possibility of the defense pulling the rabbit out of the hat and getting a judgment against the plaintiffs!
Usually when the plaintiffs run out of available cash and the conman wins again.
If Chapin is no longer paying the bills, who now has the deep pockets and for how long? 5 years???
Donāt think that this can not happen because it frequently does!
And donāt think the defendants donāt believe they have at least some leverage in this situation. Do you really think dividends are going to be paid to MDMN shareholders while the share structure is in such disarray? As do many defendants, the modus operandi will be to distract and protract this litigation for as long as possible. At some point, MDMN shareholders will start putting pressure on management to āsettleā and be done with these guys.
QUESTION FOR EACH SHAREHOLDER: How much of a potential dividend will it take for YOU to cry āsettleā? How long are YOU willing to wait? Everybody has a price.
1 Like
The share structure needs to be cleaned up first.
1 Like
Itās possible the person who settled doesnāt possess all the shares they agreed to return and may need to buy some back.
Cross judgments do happen, but it is rare, usually due to the defense of āunclean hands.ā
n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had āunclean hands,ā the plaintiffās complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment.
In Mr. Priceās lawsuit, IMO, he also has an issue with the defense of ālaches.ā
n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of ālegal ambush.ā
In Mr. Priceās lawsuit, MDMN is the defendant. In previous posts, I gave my opinion on why Mr. Priceās lawsuits would be very difficult to prove because they are entirely based upon alleged oral contracts, plus Mr. Price delayed a long time before he brought the claim. MDMN would file an affirmative defense of ālachesā and āunclean hands.ā Based upon the info MDMN has uncovered so far, it is understandable why Mr. Price never tried to enforce his alleged contracts with MDMN, he was stealing more money from MDMN than he would have received from the alleged contracts. If MDMN, as they allege, can show Mrā¦ Priceās thefts, then they can win on their unclean hands defense and laches defense. MDMN would be able to argue to the court why should Mr. Price be allowed to recover anything from MDMN under the alleged contracts when he was stealing from MDMN at the time of the alleged contract. No wonder he didnāt bring his claim at the time of the alleged breach, he didnāt want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
The above defenses and the successful application usually prevent the entry of cross-judgments. When a court finds one party has harmed another, the party who has caused the harm usually does not do so innocently. As such, it becomes difficult for the judge to then reward the party it just found to have intentionally caused harm by granting their lawsuit.
IMO, if MDMN can secure the documentary evidence and a couple of the low level defendants to flip to our side, they should handily be able to prove MDMNās allegations in the complaint against Mr. Price. The fact they gotten one low level defendant to flip gives me feel positive about MDMNās chances within the litigation, and securing future flippers and additional evidence.
IMO, I do not have a concern MDMN has no defense to Mr. Priceās lawsuits (I still have a concern about the process and making sure MDMN properly protects its rights and states its defenses by following correct procedure). IMO, I feel Mr. Priceās lawsuits were the actions of a desperate man. If MDMN gets the proof they seem to be getting, IMO, Mr. Priceās lawsuits will fail.
9 Likes
Dentman, they must have another large stash of legit shares or else why would they want the SP to go up before returning some more? (Have some assurance of enough retained equity to get them at least even before giving up another chunk)
And the majority of the claw back shares were preferred, which were not converted and sellable.
2 Likes
Hi jak167,
I want you to know how much I (and Iām sure so many others here) appreciate your (obviously) expert analysis of our āfantabulousā situation with MDMN and its legal drillingā¦ Ha ā the irony just now hit me: weāre doing exploratory drilling on two major fronts ā weāre following multiple veins on multiple spots up on the mountain (plateau), while weāre also following multiple veins in multiple legal venues down in the legal valleys, with all of these veins being equally important right now, because we have no idea which one(s), if any, will pay off bigā¦
ā madmen (Brad)
1 Like
Thank you everyone for your thank youās! I appreciate it. I will keeping trying to make my posts concise, but I canāt promise results as some of these issues are quite complex! 
Very good analogy! I would agree.
7 Likes
Medinah ex Price denies misleading shareholders
2017-01-31 10:41 ET - Street Wire
This item is part of Stockwatch's value added news feed and is only available to Stockwatch subscribers.
Here is a sample of this item:
by Mike CaswellMedinah
Minerals Inc.'s former chief executive officer, Les Price, denies the
companyās claims that he misappropriated assets and misled shareholders.
He says that the company is attempting to make him a scapegoat for
problems created by new management. He is seeking the dismissal of what
he calls a malicious and unfounded lawsuit.Mr. Price is
responding to an action that Medinah filed against him in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia on Dec. 23, 2016. The company accused him of
forging signatures and altering documents as he issued shares of Medinah
for his own benefit. Among other things, Mr. Price attempted to conceal
the fact that the companyās share total had ballooned to 2.99 billion,
Medinah said.For his part, Mr. Price claims that there is nothing
to those accusations. In a response filed on Jan. 23, 2017, he
complains that Medinah has made a series of vague allegations without
providing any particulars. He says that the company must provide some
proof.
They are returning 57M common shares with another 10M upon stock price reaching 2.5 cents.
They could have initially returned 67M shares. The first 57M donāt have a defined date.
In addition, 10M more will be delayed. Just throwing out the possibility they could have been selling the shares but now need to buy some back which would help drive price up
Les, donāt even try getting out of it, you are cooked.
WOW! Les can be busy and spend his time with a twisted PR campaign, but our legal maneuvers in the courtroom are what will bring results.