Greg should have freaking known better. No excuses. Was he not aware of Les constantly lying to shareholders?(…half of which made excuses for him, never holding him accountable and disparaged all who tried to). Les had a history that should have been enough by itself to warrant keeping an eye on him. Couple that with the rumors he routinely pumped out to shareholders…if you are Greg looking out for your money, oh and the shareholders, are you not asking why in the hell Les is going to so much trouble to invent a new flavor of crap for the shareholders to enjoy an endless cycle of excitement and disappointment. It would be less sad if greg had been in on it, because for him to not notice something was fishy, when that was his freaking job, is just plain embarrassing.
Anybody trying to shine a positive light on Chapin should be laughed out of the room. There’s a reason why he quickly gave back all of his ownership in MDMN. I’m still waiting for him to return his CDCH holdings. He knows better than anyone he has massive liability exposure if someone motivates towards a civil suit. Goodin falls under the same umbrella.
I’m not saying this is or should be the direction things go but all of the directors over the past 10+ years, along with many of the “friends of insiders/ chief cheerleaders” are susceptible to considerable financial loss if shareholders coordinate a class action. Personally, I don’t have the time or motivation but the defense: “I had no idea that Les, with his checkered past, was misleading the company and issued 1.5 BILLION shares, under my watch” would/will lead to a swift decision by any judge.
Piano man, Teaney, JJ, Hackney, the Days, Les’ message boys, etc, etc" would all be wiped out. We’re talking about well over $100M in damages.
I’m not trying to be harsh or use scare tactics but this is the basic reality of our current situation. If you believe there is even a remote chance that you participated in an illegitimate private placement, run, don’t walk to Kevin to resolve your “conundrum.” If people like Ian Dow and the long list of perpetual lenders to MDMN we’ve read about in the financials haven’t lawyered up and proactively reached out to the company. They’re nuts.
Absolutely Agree!!! There may be some shareholders that won’t put this to bed so easily, and will go after civil action against those who have not complied or cooperated with MDMN’s current legal team!
What you’re missing here is Price, Chapin, et al should actually WANT the shareholders to be represented in the pending legal matters, as any settlement with MDMN is NOT binding on individual shareholders unless the issue is raised, a class is certified, and counsel appointed to represent the interests of shareholders (does Canadian law provide for this?). Otherwise, Price, Chapin, et al leave themselves wide open to suit thereafter. Another dimension of this issue affects current management: Shareholders do not all necessarily have the same perspective as current management who would have authority to settle all matters “on behalf” of MDMN - unless current management actually desires legal scrutiny at a later date, making sure the shareholders as a group are represented in any settlement negotiations would be very, very advisable, as would TOTAL transparency in the process. Everything should be on the table and everybody should be at the table, one way or another.
I feel you are misstating the rights we have as shareholders and our ability to have input on MDMN’s decision-making process. I feel we should not “get the hopes up” of MDMN shareholders to actively participate in MDMN’s decision-making process.
I have posted a bunch previously about shareholder derivative lawsuits, the difficult burden a shareholder has to succeed in the derivative lawsuit, and the reasoning behind the lawsuit. In a nut shell, shareholders have given up the right to make day-to-day and even larger policy decisions for a corporation to the officers and BOD. A shareholder does not have any direct input on whether a corporation should or should not sue, whether it should or should not enter into a contract, whether it should or should not spend capital, whether it should or should not settle a lawsuit, etc. etc. The officers and BOD members make these decisions while, we hope, using their fiduciary duties to decide the best result for the shareholders.
No requirement exists in a corporate structure which requires shareholder approval of any settlement of a lawsuit. Further, I do not understand what you mean by a settlement would not bind shareholders? How could it not? A decision by a duly elected officer/BOD member will bind the corporation. The shareholders never enter into the equation.
If a shareholder does not like the officer/BOD’s decisions, the shareholder has a couple of options. The shareholder can sell its shares and move on. The shareholder can bring a resolution at the next shareholders meeting to slate its own candidates to the BOD to take over control of the corporation. The shareholder can bring a resolution at the next annual meeting requesting the corporation take some action relating the the decision. The shareholder, depending upon the corporation by-laws can call a special meeting requesting the corporation take some action relating to the decision. The shareholder can file derivative lawsuit on behalf of the CORPORATION (not the individual shareholder) against a third party in which the corporation also becomes a party and fights against the shareholder.
In this last option, I previously posted about the difficulties relating to moving forward with these types of lawsuits because the shareholder would fight its own corporation as well as the third party. Regardless, however, this derivative lawsuit does not come from the shareholder as individual against the third party, but on behalf of the corporation. Using your statements above, MDMN shareholders do not have an independent cause of action against Price, JJ, etc for stealing money and/or shares from MDMN. Only MDMN itself could sue Price, JJ, etc. for stealing money/shares. As a individual, Price, JJ etc. did not have privity of contract directly with you as an individual. They did not sell you shares directly, they did not enter into a oral/written contract with you, they did not conduct any business with you directly as an individual, only with MDMN as a corporation. A MDMN shareholder would have to jump through the hoops of derivative lawsuit notice requirements and then file on behalf of the MDMN against Price, JJ, etc. IMO, considering MDMN actively suing Price right now and actively hired forensic accountant to comb through corporate records, a shareholder derivative lawsuit would most likely fail, miserably.
The only time a MDMN shareholder would have a direct ability to sue Price, JJ, etc. would arise from the shareholder suffering a direct loss caused by those parties; and, remember a loss of share value is not considered direct harm. A MDMN shareholder may have a lawsuit against Price, JJ, etc. for breaching their fiduciary duties to MDMN, but a shareholder may have some issues bring this type of suit due to having to sue almost all of the officer/BOD member from the last ten years; and, the fact MDMN would have to pay for the independent attorneys to represent these officers/BOD members in defending the shareholder breach of fiduciary lawsuit. IMO, not a good use of MDMN’s limited funds.
In short, I feel we should not raise the expectation of MDMN shareholder to having active input and decision-making authority in the upcoming legal and mining decisions, including the settlement of any lawsuits now pending or filed in the future. The MDMN shareholders didn’t have input into any of the share settlement agreements MDMN has entered into in the last few months, why would we have input now, all of a sudden? To use your opinion, MDMN and Auryn should have been actively consulting and getting our shareholder approval fora all of its mining decisions and recent shareholder clawbacks. We should have had the decision-making authority on the drill holes, vein exploitation, etc. etc. and Karras return of shares, etc. Obviously we didn’t. Same applies to the legal aspects of MDMN and any settlement which may occur. The MDMN officers and BOD have the full legal authority to approve or reject any settlement from any party to any lawsuit while using their fiduciary duty to make the decision for the best interest of MDMN shareholders. If the MDMN shareholders do not like the decision, see above.
I feel MDMN and Auryn have done a very good job in changing the culture of MDMN and actively and timely advising and informing us of activities both legal and mining. I will hold them accountable for continued good advise and notification; however, they have the power and authority to make all of the decisions, period. As shareholders, we have options, but handling the day-to-day decisions is not an option. I feel we should not excite MDMN shareholders to something which doesn’t exist.
Did I say I think it would be 'advisable"? My you’re long-winded - I guess I’m a little busier than you.
I’m sure I can commence suit in State A, Joe can commence suit in State B, Larry in State C, and so on. Do you not think the parties have an interest in covering this issue?
Another dimension: I think I recall our current CEO being an strong supporter of MDMN selling out as soon as possible - and I think he was having dreams about 20 cents per share, although I’m confident he has now tempered his expectations even more at this point. I do really understand that shareholders are not here to substitute their judgment for that of management, but do you not think there are any limitations on that? Think about it. If I was not happy with a valuation of our company obtained by current management, could I not go out and hire my own valuation expert and proceed from there?
Maybe you should look at what you actually wrote. MDMN has made great stride getting the ship moving in the right direction and I, for one would like to make sure it stays in the right direction. I consider it important, despite my other commitments, to help. If you feel you only need to take a passing interest in what actually happens, not invest yourself in understanding the legal and mineral ramifications, and make off the cuff comments because you have other commitments, I feel you should preface your posts so we can all take your statements accordingly.
Let’s look at your first statement:
Could you please post your authority or basis for this statement. Here is a link to the Nevada statutes governing the formation and operation of corporations NRS: CHAPTER 78 - PRIVATE CORPORATIONS Please make sure you review sections 78.115 to 78.140. The statutes specifically provide the BOD and officers full power to operate MDMN, in any manner. Please also review the remainder of the sections for any powers the shareholders have to not be bound by settlement entered into on behalf of MDMN (I give you hint, it’s not in there). Next, I do not have a copy of MMDN’s by-laws (I don’t know if another shareholder has a copy and it we don’t we can request a copy form MDMN), but I have prepared 100’s of sets myself to know the by-laws do not provide shareholders the rights you have stated. Lastly, show me one legal case where a corporation suffering an injury (ie: Price stealing from MDMN) requires the corporation to get its shareholder’s approval of a settlement with the wrongdoer. Remember only MDMN has been harmed by Price’s action, NOT the shareholders.
Next:
Again, I have posted at length previously how shareholders would not have any action against Price, JJ, et all unless they were directly harmed or through a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit. Please list for us the direct harm shareholders have suffered from Price, JJ et al’s action (remember share price losses don’t count). Then please state the causes of action to secure recovery for those actual harms.
Lastly:
You have specifically threatened legal scrutiny at a later date against MDMN unless the shareholders are made part of any settlement decisions. Where is your legal basis for this statement? When I responded previously, I set forth the specific legal structure of MDMN as a corporation and its shareholders and the duties MDMN officers and BOD members have to MDMN shareholders. This description is law school 101. Any simple Google Search will get you reams of basic info on this structure. Here is one for you so you can better spend your time on other things Google* and this one has pretty good details Corporate Powers and Management
Guess what, nothing provides any authority bringing the shareholders to the table during settlement discussions or the decisions to accept or reject a settlement. I have added the Nevada statutes which provide and I quote
NRS 78.120 Board of directors: General powers.
1. Subject only to such limitations as may be provided by this chapter, or the articles of incorporation of the corporation, the board of directors has full control over the affairs of the corporation.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subject to the bylaws, if any, adopted by the stockholders, the directors may make the bylaws of the corporation. Unless otherwise prohibited by any bylaw adopted by the stockholders, the directors may adopt, amend or repeal any bylaw, including any bylaw adopted by the stockholders. The articles of incorporation may grant the authority to adopt, amend or repeal bylaws exclusively to the directors.
3. The selection of a period for the achievement of corporate goals is the responsibility of the directors.
Where is your authority?
I feel strongly we all got hoodwinked and in trouble in the past due Price and his cronies using posters to deceive us. MDMN is getting truthful, accurate info out now and I feel strongly we need to do the same. Everyone needs to get it right and be accurate. If you don’t feel you have the time, let others do the work for you, we don’t mind.
No need for anyone to hire a valuation expert. When Auryn IPOs, the market will provide an adequate, if not difficult to dispute, valuation barometer - disconnects be damned.
PS - And unfortunately MDMN’s valuation won’t be anywhere near .20 per share, let alone $5.00 per share.
Maybe Auryn can swap one MDMN share for one Auryn share 
.
So Auryn would have roughly 10 billion shares outstanding?
Dividends are very possible down the road
I’ll be very happy to let the free market be the arbiter of our share price - and, because of my confidence in the mountain after much reading on the subject, I will be happy to wait while things get better and better. On the other hand, I would not be very happy to come away feeling like I was robbed, especially after all we’ve been through over the years. I don’t expect that at this point, but I feel like I have to watch. It is what it is.
The a$$hole group is moving the price down setting up for lower prices next week
Really sick of watching this crap
Unfortunately, you have been robbed. There’s no way around that fact. The only remaining question is how much was ultimately stolen and/or will be recovered. Time will tell.
There used to be a CDCH thread at the bottom of the page. What happened to it?
Thanks much!
Been busy and just catching up on the news. Kevin, Auryn and legal team are doing a great job, not one complaint.
BUT, listing on the OTC, no matter if they will be fully reporting, is a disasterous decision. The ability to raise significant capital is very poor and an OTC listing is damage to the reputation.
I can understand listing on the TSX-V and dual listing on the OTCQX, but not just the OTC. Even list on the CSE.
Let’s see if Auryn gives us some production news Monday