SN is run by exactly same group of cronies as Newport , you cant even try to tell me that a leopard can change its spots. You above anyone knows that does not happen. My response to JP whose post you "borrowed" from is below.
| From: ayeyou | of 237332 | | | The Newport case was not brought because they had a cash surplus or because they were getting a royalty which had skyrocketed and they failed to release that material news to their shareholders. The case was brought because during that time when the royalties skyrocketed and shareholders finally were made aware of that material fact , Rozier and his cronies engaged in all kinds of trading that was designed for no other purpose then to enrich themselves once the royalty info became public knowledge. When a royalty goes from zero to more then half a million a quarter you would think that was material news. But Rozier kept that under wraps and bought shares along with his cronies to the tune of millions and millions of shares..Then after they were all loaded up they release the news so they can cash in. If it wasnt news before they loaded up why was it news after? If they manage to win the case I would be surprised but they certainly can afford good lawyers with the money they stole from shareholders of Newport , and Reva Resources.
321gold.com
It became obvious to shareholders that perhaps the royalty was a pretty good deal when Newport announced on April 29, 2014 that the royalty from Australia had rocketed from none in 2010 to over $1 million per month or $.015 per share per month in the first quarter of 2014.
Actually the royalty probably became material by the end of the April 30 quarter 2013 when it went up to $570,000 for the quarter. There was no press release talking about it then. That’s interesting because as of April 30, 2013, the company had $.11 a share in cash and was selling for $.04.
The self-dealing on the part of Newport “management” continued. On October 3, 2013 Newport announced closing the deal on their Beanie Baby project in BC. The Newport directors paid Reva, (two of their own directors) some $1.5 million in cash and 5,436,000 shares of Newport. I can only say that took some balls.
As a result of the unannounced press releases detailing the royalty payments, Newport shares were trading on the open market for $.04 a share while management knew that they had $.17 in cash at the end of October. In effect, company A paid themselves in company B shares worth four times as much in cash as in the open market because nobody reads quarterly reports from companies not doing anything. So the real issue is, was this a conflict of interest between the interests of management and the interests of shareholders and what exactly is a material disclosure? I think both questions are easy to answer.
The ongoing rape really gets interesting with their press release of December 19, 2013. Ms. Barbara Dunfield announced the company was granting just over 6 million options to directors and officers at a price of $.05 good for five years. |
|
