It seems I'm wrong again... I'm glad you brought up the fact...

It seems I'm wrong again... I'm glad you brought up the fact that you admitted to emailing management and they have in fact confirmed it's 100% because that would mean management has been holding back information from shareholders.

Let's run through the steps of how I got my picture showing that 50% would be escrowed.

(Sidenote: I know the announcement doesn’t state that 50% are being escrowed, but it also doesn’t state that 100% are being escrowed, as you initially claimed before speaking with management.)



The green box is what you just provided - that's all good and well.

Now, let's move to the red box, where it describes the consideration of the securities. Management has stated that shareholders should refer to the announcement published on September 20, 2024, for further information. On page 5, management provided shareholders with the picture I showed you above regarding the 50% (53,125,000 shares).

Now, let's go back to the green box: "Shares which were approved by shareholders on November 15, 2024." Hmm, this gets interesting - let's jump over and see what terms and conditions shareholders agreed to.



Looks like shareholders only agreed to 50% being escrowed, not the full 100% as you say management claim.

So, are you telling me that management can sign a binding purchase agreement, then hold a meeting for shareholders to vote on the conditions outlined in the explanatory statement, and once it has been passed by shareholders, simply decide to change the conditions the shareholders agreed to?

I'm not very familiar with these general meetings and how much weight they hold. What information can you give me? Are management allowed to change a binding contract as they please without additional shareholder approval, or are they not properly disclosing their actions to shareholders?

And it's funny how management can get back to you so quickly on a weekend regarding how many shares will be escrowed but can't provide shareholders with information about land access. FYI, before you say anything, I'm not implying that you're lying - I'm simply questioning what management is even doing.

If it turns out they can’t simply change what shareholders originally agreed on without additional approval or just simply letting shareholders know, this might be something that needs to be looked into to see what's going on behind the scenes.

Let me know if I've posted/ spread any more false information above.

DYOR, NFA, and IMHO

Slim