concerned shareholders - asic contact, page-10

Hey Magix

I agree, the Bauxite situation as well as the unknown drill results, and now the finer details surrounding the offer really does fly in the face of disclosure... it flies in the face of their own policy and procedure documents!

http://www.unitedminerals.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1059

Do you know who, if anyone, has those surrendered / withdrawn tenements now?

More importantly, can we in any way link this to the situation that we now find ourselves in?

I myself have speculated that there may be good reason to keep a lid on certain results - but the Bauxite information is damning and I can see no acceptable reason
to not disclose that information.

There are so many aspects to what has evolved. Things I would like to see addressed in regards to supporting evidence would include...

- any links between BHP and the manipulation of the share price prior to the offer. (Citi)

- something to suggest the agreement between UMC and CRM was anything but legitimate. (Hell of a masquerade if this is in any way true)

- anything linking a certain ex chairman with the events that unfolded. (that just smells funny to me - re Sep 15)

- real evidence that management never intended to go to production with Railway... (According to the Annual report UMC has submitted all sorts of reports and enquiries regarding the mining of Railway - these are the sorts of documents that may be accessible to people as good evidence - one way or the other)

It's very easy to assume some or all of these things... but assumption won't get us anywhere.

RICH08, I agree - not a bright idea to post evidential material on a forum (my little bloke must be giving me nappy brain! LOL). As you can see from Bungy's posts, it's something that has to be handled carefully and there is always danger in going off half cocked.

For ASIC to really prove anything here they would ultimately need to consider warrants for gathering evidence, and I'm fairly sure that they need to go through the AFP for that to happen (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken).

What this means is that there has to be a VERY strong case on the surface if it's to go further, otherwise it will most likely be a 'please explain' that gets brushed aside by people who know how to work the system.

So by all means if you've got it, send it in and then maybe we can get to the bottom of this... since the company doesn't appear to want to throw us a bone.


Luck to all.