You would probably start with a question regarding non-disclosure of the changes in circumstances regarding toll agreements at Big Springs. In particular, when did it become uneconomical to proceed with the tolling agreement held with Jerrit, and when did the circumstances surrounding the tolling agreement with JC change the economics of Big Springs to the point that it was more favorable to sell the project rather than continue on.
As far as all shareholders are concerned and as far as all shareholders have been notified BS is a viable project with an existing tolling agreement priced to produce profit at even lower gold prices than today. The only additional notification provided to shareholders with regards to BS has been the negotiating efforts to garnish a BETTER tolling agreement.
To the best knowledge of shareholders the BS project is permitted and approved and viable. Just awaiting fine weather and mobilization of the mining contractors. The mining contractors are available in the district. Truckloads of ore had been sent to JC with the aim of trialing the ore at JC's facility and we were ready to make money.
Everything discussed above is what drove the shareprice up and encouraged share buying up into the high teens.
If the deal to merge with Exterra was due to complications and the inability for BS to proceed (due to changed tolling circumstances known to the board) then, at that point in time there will have been information that should have been shared with the shareholders.
As far as shareholders have been advised, there is no known reason why the BS project (that they invested into) should be sold. No announcement has been provided that support the directors intentions to sell down a million ounce project to reinvest into a VERY low grade project in Australia that for all intents and purposes is not profitable and only contains 65,000 oz.
If it can be proved that the project became uneconomical, due to unannounced knowledge, surrounding a failure or detrimental changes to the tolling agreement, then I would imagine that a good law firm could possibly have grounds to pursue the directors as well as the consultancy firm. (and anyone associated with the process).
There is a very big difference between low gold yields from Second Fortune problems and the collapse of the Big Springs project.
