its a valuable lesson...., page-7

so, had a chat with the company, the "what went wrong" call.

Here it is.

The plaintiff, originally held the tenaments in his own name.

He then had said, that his company, RRA?? held the tenaments, or he had transfered them to RRA.

But the clincher is that RRA was not incorporated. It was not a valid entity to own any tenement,

So he proported to fradulently, then sign over from RRA to MLS the tenaments.

The argument, apon which the judge decided for the plaintiff, was "how could RRA transfer tenaments, that when itself took ownership of them, was not a viable holder".

It is a valid point in law i am to understand.

Its like selling someone your car, and you say that you transfered ownership of the car to your imaginary friend, who then signs them to you.

The entity RRA not incorporated, should never have had the tenaments granted to it (unlawfully), therefore, it can not hand them to another party, mls.

So appeal??

His actions were unlawful, and fraudulent as i undertand.

Not much i can add, bit of mess really.

Is he liable for his fraudulent actions, and can that itself lead to a new case of litigation, that would force him to settle??

I dont know, and not comment further.

good luck holders, no i dont work for the company.

I think it is just unfortunate, and their lawyers did not percieve this risk accurately.

We all learn.

The base metals projects ought to see a floor somewhere above the 1c level.

But the market can be a punished beast.

cheers