Thanks for that reference to BGS @SRV - very interesting reading - I would urge all ICG shareholders to take the time to have a read of the BGS threads to better understand what shareholders can do, and perhaps just as importantly what the market may think of it, in the short term at least.
In the short term at least it appears the market did not like the BGS shareholder "coup" that saw 2 of 3 current directors resign and the 2 new "shareholders' directors" appointed - SP has gone from 31.5c to 26.5c but a lot (maybe all) of that SP damage could perhaps have been avoided if the changes had not been so dramatic - the company lost 2/3 of its' board.
Perhaps an earlier appointment of one or two additional director/s, while keeping the current board intact, would have not only avoided the shock of such sudden change but also more importantly have avoided the situation that caused the SH revolt. BGS did not adequately explain to its SH why it was looking at selling off its' asset (possibly for much less than its full value) and the SH reaction just goes to prove that shareholders do not like being treated like mushrooms. The ICG board would do well to take note of this and try to ensure that it articulates its "vision" for the company, and what and why it is doing to fulfill that vision, to SH. The type of vision I'm talking about is that enunciated by the 2 new BGS directors in their letter to shareholders annexed to the BGS Notice of Meeting.
The 2 new directors of BGS appear, from their CVs, to have a strong background in developing resources and transitioning companies from explorer to producer, which , reflects the desire of the BGS shareholders that it try to develop its' potential rather than just remain an explorer that sells off its discoveries - I suspect that most ICG shareholders may have a similar hope if we are fortunate enough to find we have a significant resource.
The board has, in my opinion, done a terrific job as a junior explorer - after the crushing disappointment of Chanape it has dusted itself off, pulled up its socks, and used its geological talent (Ross) to recognise the potential of Riqueza - and hopefully that geological brilliance is about to pay off . But as BGS demonstrates having a board that makes a company a successful explorer does not automatically mean it will go on to become a producer - for that you need an entirely different skill set on the board (have a look at the CV's of the new BGS directors). It's premature to have people like this on the ICG board as we don't even have assay results yet - but if we do have a major resource these are the types of people we will need on the board, in addition to the current board members.
The danger I think is that if we do not identify and put forward the right people with the right skill sets and contacts (like the new BGS appointments) then the temptation will be to accept board appointments as called for by the Chinalco shareholders because they will argue that only they can bring the skills, experience and resources needed to develop Riqueza. I am concerned that to date the board appears to have cozied up to the Chinalco shareholders at the expense of keeping the rest of us in the dark (e.g. private placements, personal guided tours of the site by Ross and now restoration of full voting rights to some of their shares) - this only fuels my paranoia that the board may rush to quickly to accept any proposal made by the Chinalco interests to effectively take Riqueza "off our hands" because developing it ourselves would be "out of our depth". To that end I think we need, at this stage, one new appointment to the board of someone who the shareholders trust to be open and transparent with them and to provide a counterbalancing viewpoint to any inclination the current board members may have to "sell off" Riqueza too quickly rather than fully look into other development alternatives.
I also think, to avoid the disruption to the SP that BGS has experienced, @thunder54 is on the right track when he says
(20min delay)