Thank You Kevin!!!
Terrific update …
A lot of good information. I especially liked:
There were several other areas of the ADL that I observed including some targets that have yet to be publicly reported. The need for an experienced geologist like Dr. Raymond Jannas, recently contracted by Auryn’s CEO, cannot be understated. With the help of Dr. Jannas, Auryn can prioritize the targets in a way that balances the long-term success of the project against the need for short-term results.
First off, terrific update from Kevin on both the legal and mining fronts. I feel the new level of communication coming from MDMN, whether the news good, bad, or middle, will go a long way towards healing MDMN’s share price.
RE the legal front,
I have looked at the motion to remove the attorney and I really don’t have much to add to the motion. I feel MDMN’s attorney did a great job. I would like to add, however, these types of disqualification motions in general are not easily or quickly granted. Courts generally take a very strong view a person should have the right to employ their counsel of choice.
I have recently had to file and fight a motion to disqualify opposing counsel in a case I was defending. The family attorney represented multiple family businesses, one of which owned by my client (son). Father sued son and used family attorney. Took six months to properly brief the issue, and before we conducted a hearing, the judge stated he wanted to take direct testimony from the parties and other witness before making his decision. We then were needing to commence limited discovery before we could conduct the hearing. Ended up settling the case four months after the judge pushed us to resolve it (to my client’s benefit btw ;-)) before going through the time and expense. IMO, I would expect the briefs on this issue to be quite big and take extra time to file them. IMO, I would not expect the court to rule on this issue for at least the 4-6 months from now.
RE the motion itself, IMO it looks like MDMN should have a strong basis to get the removal of the attorney. The motion sets forth as much or even more basis for removal than I had in my motion and I most likely would have won mine if it went to hearing and the court didn’t push us to settle the case. The fact the attorney took specific direction from MDMN on a legal matter, had direct access to MDMN confidential business documents, and specifically represented by filing an appearance on its behalf in more than one court would all strongly support MDMN’s request to have the attorney removed. Further, Price’s status as a director and/or officer of MDMN leads more support to the claim for removal as Price should not have let the attorney represent both him and MDMN in the past. I have posted this in passing previously when we were discussing potential MDMN litigation against prior directors/officers. I indicated MDMN would end up having to foot the bill for the former director/officer’s legal defense and they would have to hire their own attorneys to represent them. Obviously due to the conflict of interest. I feel, right now, MDMN will win this motion.
RE the continued representation, they should not have represented both; but, they could have represented both if the attorney secured an executed waiver of conflict letter. Even with a waiver letter, an attorney can’t represent parties in direct conflict with each other (ie: same attorney represents plaintiff and defendant), but the waiver only relates to other issue which may arise (ie: a plaintiff sues a corporation and its president for breach of contract, an attorney could secure a waiver and represent both the president and the corp in its defense because they both are on the same team). MDMN’s motion stopped any type of waiver claim in its tracks due to the motion specifically stating the attorney did not secure MDMN’s consent (ie: waiver of conflict) to handle the representation. Ultimately he should have withdrawn his representation from both MDMN and Price, as the withdrawal from both would have satisfied the attorney’s ethical obligation. We all now Price’s level of ethical conduct, so it doesn’t surprise me the people he employs use the same level of ethics.
RE the info the attorney has, when the attorney gets removed, or if he smartens up and withdraws, cannot be used in any forum for either the benefit or detriment of either MDMN or Price. The attorney cannot disclose any info to any third party and the attorney’s client confidentiality will remain in full force. The attorney must turn over to both MDMN and Price a full copy of their respective attorney case files (ie: MDMN gets ours, Price gets his) and then has to walk away.
RE the tactic, I don’t see it as a tactic as Price has been intimately involved with MDMN for years and until only recently, had full access to anything MDMN anyway. He most likely knows more than he told his attorney because he’s trying to save his own a**. To try to use this as a tactic would only result in it hurting Price in the long run. He now will have to spend time and money defending this motion, IMO, to ultimately fail. He will then have to find a new attorney to represent him. Any good attorney would review the entire court litigation when interviewing Price and have some very hard questions for him. A good attorney would also even reach out to MDMN’s attorney in a courtesy call to get MDMN’s take on the case before accepting Price representation. A good attorney would not accept a case from Price if the attorney feels Price is lying. A good attorney wants the truth, all of it, especially the truth which hurts your client’s case. So, when the current attorney gets removed, Price will most likely end up with another bad, unethical attorney (like attracts like) and MDMN can only benefit.
Feeling better and better about MDMN every day.
Does this motion, if granted, further compel Price to attempt a settlement? My assumption being that Price doesn’t want to incur further legal costs to retain new counsel…assuming the whole lawsuit has been a ruse by Price to improve any kind of attempted settlement on his part in the first place.
@Hurricane_Rick
The order request claims that it is not being requested nor has usefulness as a “tactic” but solely on it’s merit as to the conflicts, if I’m reading it correctly.
That wording doesn’t mean it may not have some tactical benefits. Use the reference to tactics in purely a legal argument sense, narrowly construed. For instance, the appeal was not “tactically” filed so as to limit time to respond or deny the opposition representation by counsel but rather contentious representation by this counsel. I see no contradiction in the statement
I just thought it might not be a good idea to emphasize that he might be pressured by it.
So let’s leave the legal stuff and go with the goodies…
Is this what Kevin has mentioned
"The vein on level 2a is eye-popping. Outwardly it appears to have far greater mineralization than the vein uncovered on level 3. This has been confirmed by multiple assays on both veins."
The same vein that Auryn is specifying here?
We have spent the last two weeks advancing the adit toward the southeast keeping the vein on the east side of the adit. We have left the vein mostly unexposed so that we can define the boundaries of this section of the vein without having to extract, sort, and stockpile the mineralized sections of ore. Every several meters we have been taking samples and verifying that the vein is still on the east side of the adit. Sample results indicate the grades are higher than the test production runs which were sent to ENAMI.
Can’t wait for results!!
Since they will be listing in 4Q they need to start promoting themselves so this way when they list the stock can sky rocket!! Now when does this promotion usually start? Iike I said all little pieces are adding up to a great year for us!
No, It is 2a (20M above adit 3), the 2a vein was reported at the info meeting to have grades up to 200 g/t. The vein reported as left mostly unexposed is described as the Larissa extension 4M past the LC-6 vicinity in adit 3.
Our speculation is that this vein is not the same vein that we uncovered in September on level 2. The vein on level 2 returned bonanza grades which we reported on at the informational meeting. However, further exploration and analysis is necessary to make a conclusive determination.
ADL Project Update - January 2017 | AURYN Mining Corporation
If these are two different veins in close proximity, and both extend 30 meters in both vertical directions (up and down), then there are many truckloads awaiting excavation. The assays taken from 2a have not yet been publicly reported, as far as I know. Let’s wait and see what gets reported from AURYN’s continuing exploration.
I have heard via the grapevine that Les has already proposed a settlement with a 30 day to accept timeline. No details only that he did not receive any response, fwiw. I know what my response would be “see you in Jail Les” !
Great update, and good job Kevin.
Unless we get all our shares back, and compensation for all the trauma he has put the shareholders through !
I have heard via the grapevine that Les has already proposed a settlement with a 30 day to accept timeline. DID YOU HERE THAT FROM LES?
Here’s a good place for Les to start:Latest Breaking News, Headlines & Updates | National Post
Pretty sure the grapevine has shriveled up and died. But Les may still be watering it hoping it will come back to life. I doubt Kevin or our attorney’s would disclose it.
Once this is settled, I say we all chip in and buy Les a one way ticket to Iran with a shirt that says “I hate Muslims”
That would be impossible, especially after my Xmas card to him calling him pure evil and that he should rot in jail!
I’m confident Les made such an offer to settle because he felt like it might be entertained.
Why would he feel like that?
The need to get this behind us?
Some weakness in our case we don’t know about?
What do you want to bet that it includes a provision wherein the parties agree to NOT testify against one another in any criminal proceeding?
Nothing can compel him to settle if he rally doesn’t want to settle; however, this motion will greatly increase his out-pocket expense. MDMN has laid out a reasonable and sufficient case for disqualification. This fact means all other actions in MDMN and Price’s case must stop until the court has heard and ruled upon the motion (either for or against). Price has a tough decision to make. He and his unethical attorney know MDMN has a very strong motion. The only real defense is a waiver, which MDMN already addressed, or the fact the attorney never represented MDMN (hard to argue due to the appearance and work on other cases). If Price spends the money to fight motion and loses, he is out the money and he has to now get another attorney and still have to pay this new attorney for the work on the case going forward and he is no closer to “winning” (that’s sarcasm folks) his case. If his attorney pulls out now, he can save the money he would have spent fighting the motion and put it towards a new attorney, but where is he going to find another atty to defend him after the atty finds out what really has happened in the case. If Price had a strong case he would have already had a good attorney representing him (like MDMN currently has) not one of his cronies. Or he ca use those funds to try to settle with MDMN.
I said very early on upon reviewing Price’s lawsuit I felt he was using them to try to get leverage on MDMN to settle. He would argue “settle with me now or I will make you spend money to fight me.” I think he felt MDMN would not be able to afford good attorneys to represent them and would not have access to cash flow to pay them (wonder how he knew that, huh?). Well that sword cuts both ways. MDMN has found good attorneys and they have methodically loaded up the case to MDMN’s benefit, putting Price in a tough spot. Now MDMN can dictate, “Price come settle with us or we can and will bury you.” I feel he didn’t think MDMN would fight very hard or very well. Surprise!
In my case, the court used the motion to disqualify as a basis to push an unreasonable plaintiff to the table to a settlement. By requiring the parties to conduct discovery and conduct a full evidentiary hearing, the court put both parties on notice it was going to make us work for it (ie: spend money). Once the unreasonable plaintiff realized the defendant wasn’t going away and he would have to hire a new attorney and not use his old “family” attorney with whom he has the special family discount thing going, he would have spent probably a $100k+ to fight his case, with no guarantee of success. Makes it a lot easily to settle in this situation. I feel MDMN’s motion, as based upon the info in the pleadings, had a strong chance at success, the court will act in a similar fashion. If Price wants to fight, then Court will say “we are doing it by the book, conduct your discovery, draft your responses and reply, and we will do a full evidentiary hearing on the issue.” This is attorney-speak for “give me something to show you are going to resolve the case, or I’m going to make both of you work your ass of for it.”
MDMN has put Price in a tough spot. Hopefully, MDMN can leverage this power to get a favorable resolution. If not, then, burn him to the ground.
Jak167,
Does JJ or anyone else get involved at some point?
Thanks.