Hey Guys,
I wrote this post once before but it got blown out somehow just as I was about to post it. So here goes version 2.
I have noticed the company making announcements saying they are taking legal advice regarding possibly taking legal action against the Greenland government. I don't pretend to have any idea why they would do so, but it reminds me of another legal matter the company may have that you guys may not have heard of. Has anyone heard of the company's agreeing to an addendum to their Exploration mining license in 2013? Has anyone ever seen an announcement from the company disclosing their agreeing to said addendum? And has anyone heard that said addendum was agreed to by the company (GGG) and the Greenland government in 2013 and currently resides attached to the GGG exploration mining license?
Let me fill you in on the addendum by quoting it word for word directly from a Sermitiaq Article from February 17, 2021, written by Merete Lindstrom.
The Article is called "Naalakkersuit: There is no liability" you may search the Sermitsiaq.AQ website for the article at HTTS://Sermitsiaq.aq
The Article publishes an exact copy of the addendum that was agreed to by GGG and the Greenland government in 2013. I copy it exactly below:
"If the licensee applies for notification of authorization to use radioactive elements, cf. clause 301, the Naalakkersuit may freely and for any reason reject the application. The application may be rejected, among other things, due to a political or administrative decision not to grant permission for the use of radioactive elements. A rejection of the application entails no obligations and no liability, including no liability, for the Greenland Home Rulr Government, the Naalakkersuisut or the Mineral resources Directorate." (end addendum)
Also from the article was the following sentance "The right to reject Greenland Minerals continues to apply, is the answer in all four (asked and answered) section 37 questions.
So the question I raise is, do you think the company might want to focus on the problems they have created in failing to, since 2013, ever properly release this addendum they agreed to, to we shareholders or the ASX or the ASIC, as to what is obviously a material change in the company's Exploration Mining license terms?
The company has had several fundraisings since 2013 that total more than 100 million dollars. In the information to inform the investors and the brokers and the ASX and the ASIC do think the company disclosed this material change in the form of the agreed to addendum to everyone in the documents? I can't find any such disclosure. So has the company, because of their possible failure to disclose the material change, that the agreed to addendum created, created a serious legal problem because of their failure to disclose breaking a number of securities laws and civil regulations as well? I would suggest that those possible securities laws violations is where the company might want to focus their legal attention.
There are some who may well be looking at their legal options in the face of the company's possible problems from their failure to follow the rules and disclose this hugely material change don't you think? As such, we all may become a victim of the company's and the board leaving themselves and our company open, to what could be a very expensive lawsuit don't you think?
Expand
(20min delay)