"
Surely he wouldn't have forgotten about the 25 to 1 consolidation."
It's quite possible, and many other things, it would seem.
It is difficult to understand why that poster provides such a strong defence for an entity that has never (after spending millions of shareholder's dollars) produced 1c of return for shareholders.
Could the same poster let all of us know how many Directors purchased shares in the "company transforming" capital raise? Remember that capital raising - they originally considered issuing at 8.5c (pfft). Despite issuing and reissuing prospectuses (numerous times) and then failing to buy shares, they recommended shareholders and investors do what they failed to do. What?
There was some loose claim about AGV (or even QBL) selling a tenement for a profit. Hopefully, that wasn't a reference to ML1492 - I'm not sure. In any event, ML1492 was 'sold' to Volcan for $1,000,000.00
Volcan never paid the $1,000,000.00
The debt was subsequently impaired in CGB's accounts. Does that poster recall who controls Volcan and who was also on the board of CGB?
As a side note, that fact was put forward many times by a few contrarian posters. To date, no reasonable explanation has been given for why Volcan never paid for ML1492—there were lots of excuses and hollow guff, yet no explanation that would withstand rudimentary scrutiny.
I don't think it is a question of memory lapse - this is what happens when confirmation bias is present.
Oh, and there is the issue of being a witness for the plaintiff.
