A colleague of mine has was in touch with Melanie Leydin...

A colleague of mine has was in touch with Melanie Leydin (Director of JRV) yesterday by email and today by phone. She was incredibly helpful.

My colleague asked the following questions of her by email:

1) Under the Frame Agreement signed with China Railway Group and
Yunnan Jiaming Technology Company, was their an agreement or
understanding that the $1 million paid up front by the Chinese
investors was non-refundable if the formal cooperation agreement was
not signed by 31 October 2008? If so, is this captured in writing?

2) Does JRV have written evidence that the Chinese investors approved
the $1 million spent on 2 x 4WD vehicles costing approximately
$200,000? Or alternatively, is there any written evidence that JRV
could spend the $1million as it saw fit?

3) Is it true that JRV has bought or leased an office in the town of
Young and if so for how long has it been leased? What was the cost
associated with this?

4) Is it true that JRV has bought or leased houses (for staff) in the
town of Young? How many houses have been leased? For how long have
they been leased? What was the cost associated with this?

5) Has the company hired any new employees since the Frame Agreement
was signed? How many new employees have been hired? What are their
roles in the company? What has been the cost associated with this?


In her responding email Melanie writes:

"I can understand the frustrations of many of the shareholders of JRV and they have every right to be asking questions and making enquiries of the Directors and management as it is their Company. Further to that, I must add that it is not acceptable that shareholders be “hung up on” or spoken to with disrespect."

Melanie agreed that cash conservation was her paramount responsibility and also stated that JRV had received written requests from the Chinese partners to spend money on their behalf.

Melanie mentioned that she would need to seek legal advice from the company solicitors before she could answer the remaining questions because it could be regarded as sensitive and did not want to unfairly release information to any particular individual. Today, Melanie made herself available by telephone and stated that the solicitors had advised her not to answer my colleagues questions as she could land herself in trouble with ASIC. However, she did state that their was going to be a board meeting tomorrow and that she would push for a statement to be released through the ASX to clarify the situation for shareholders. She couldn't guarantee that she would be successful with this motion but said that she would try. If she was unsuccessful, Melanie hoped that such questions could be answered in the next report put out by the company.

We should be thankful that at least one member of the board is so helpful and willing to act appropriately on behalf of shareholders.