research report, page-23

Tangles, YRR and GPN have been shockers for about 9 months now. We are no longer talking day to day fluctuations. Maybe this has something to do with it:

39.2m YRR shares and options for Australian Uranium
85m YRR shares and options for Cabe Resources
6m YRR shares and options for 20% of Apogei


GPN's share of Gabinintha reduced from 70% to about 20%
220m GPN shares and options for 80% of Apogei further diluting GPN holders


And lately its been AGU's turn

20m AGU shares and options for Haven Resources
60m AGU shares and options for Jarra Resources on the way

All the above have been issued in the last 9 months, coinciding with a slide in the share prices of the companies.

If the board wish to use the proximity of others as proof of prospectivity then they should also use the value paid by neighbours as a price guide instead of issuing outlandish amounts of free shares for unproven land.

Now that the damage has been done to GPN & YRR, culminating in very poor share prices for both i think they are good value at this point in time. YRR will no doubt very soon announce the next round of drilling at Gabinintha and news mustn't be too far away regarding follow-up work to be undertaken on GPN's j/v projects with AGU & MZM. And who knows, maybe they will even announce something soon about the mythical Chinese deal that's been bandied around for months.

I'm still hopeful but annoyed that the real blue sky potential has been stripped away. All the risk has been placed on shareholders of GPN, YRR and AGU, whilst others swan in and get free shares.

Anyway here's some light weekend reading for you that underlines my major concerns regarding all the deals mentioned above:
(I'm not suggesting the same has happened with the above deals, just how hard it is for shareholders to assess the true value of acquisitions without independent valuations as a guide. Without information to make a fully informed decision shareholders are left having to believe that the Directors have their best interests at heart, which may not always be the case unfortunately.)

Have a read of pages 41 to 55 of CHM's Statement of Claim against MMX and others. On pages 42 to 45 it discusses the issuing of 13m CHM shares and options to shareholders of a company called Cadetta to acquire the 13m shares and options of Cadetta. Cadetta's assets consisted of the following leases:

E52/1740, E52/1751, E52/1752, P52/1034.

(Interestingly, the above leases are in the Peak Hill area and each adjoin some of GPN's leases acquired from Desert Resources.)

It contends that the directors of CHM failed to undertake any real investigation into the value of Cadetta's tenements and that the value of CHM shares issued was disproportionate to the value of the Cadetta shares being acquired. In this instance CHM shares had a market value of $1.04m as compared to the claim that Cadetta's tenements were valued at no more than $274k.

On pages 45 & 46 it mentions the names of the shareholders of Cadetta. Have a look.

The Statement of Claim is simply as the name suggests and has yet to be tested in court. It may be found to have no validity whatsoever. Makes interesting reading though

You can find the CHM Statement of Claim on the following site:

http://www.blackdogsbarking.com.au/