Time for a new account using the same language and 'Mr Collins" to refer to a board member - that not suspect, eh? Not very subtle.
But lets try and keep it real, point by point (and Im being generous with what is clearly a vendetta):
1. "The trouble for shareholders is that the RIM directors have supported Giovinazzo publicly when they were told he was not a director and provided with evidence of this. As a result, RIM has ended up accepting money which was obtained by Giovinazzo when he said he was a director or GPR but was not validly appointed. The authorities and courts will determine the outcomes of these actions, but there must be some chance they determine Giovinazzo has raised money inappropriately. There is a risk the authorities even determine the actions are fraudulent."
==> If it was so obvious, why did it take a large court case and hundreds of pages in the judgement? Didnt these gentlemen know each other beforehand and present a united front until they fell out (note all the gifts to each other mentioned in the judgement?
2."What would it mean for RIM directors and RIM if it were concluded it accepted money under these circumstances having been forewarned?"
==>Forewarned by parties who clearly have their own agendas, especially so once the nature of resource became clear. If it was so obvious, authorities would have acted for fraud before a private case was brought. This is not to say an explanation is not required, but to frame the nature of the issue appropriately
3. ""449 Although GPR is not bound by the GPR/Omeo Gold Loan Agreements, because,among other things, they were executed by Mr Giovinazzo who was not a director ofGPR at the time the agreements were entered into and otherwise were effected byMr Giovinazzo’s position of obvious conflict of interest, Omeo Gold has not sought torecover the moneys advanced in this action. In that context, there is nothing torestrain. Further although Omeo Gold is not able to enforce the GPR/Omeo GoldLoan Agreements because these agreements are not binding on GPR, to the extent towhich moneys were provided, however indirectly (to Rimfire for the purpose ofpreserving GPR’s interest in the Rimfire Agreements), this may not preclude the partywhich provided the funds for GPR’s benefit, presumably Omeo Gold, from seekingsome form of remedy of restitutionary or quasi restitutionary nature."
==> Scraping the barrel here to find any negative mention of RIM. If the threat is to recover funds, and assuming the resource is truly multi-billion in nature (Im still waiting for feedback on this), ~5m would not only be trifling, but the board would no doubt be happy to get rid of these 'partners'.
There seems to be a lot of personal angst in this case, and I wouldnt be surprised if certain parties wanted to force the price down to get a controlling share of this project on the cheap, and settle a bunch of scores at the same time. I also wouldnt be surprised if some SHs would sell given the uncertainty. This is where the statement from the company will be critical - lets see what they say, what they plan, and how they intend to go about pushing all the projects forward.
Mining, and especially junior mining, is full of the most suspect and dubious characters, so none of this is out of the ordinary. What is unusual is to have an asset like this - again, if this is incorrect, please point it out for the benefit of all, but make a case based on fact and reason
Expand
(20min delay)