They have transferred the leases to Nio-star... SRSR owns 100% of Nio-star and, last we heard, SRSR is the only shareholder.
Nio-star has been granted shares in SRSR to sell, to raise $... and they have borrowed quite a lot of money... and it appears they have received money from other sources which has not been adequately explained... and in the aggregate that money has been used.
There are legitimate questions we need to ask about Nio-star's audited financials for 2011 and 2012... which were not published until November 2014. Among the obvious questions... are... the sources of the monies that were distributed to company officers and related persons, and the nature of the expenditures made by those related persons. Why is it that the audited financials show that Revenue Canada is characterizing the payments made to the insiders, as they are... in a way that denies the company $ for tax refunds that were applied for... with the value well in excess of $140,000 ? Has that money been declared "income"... rather than money that was properly expended on legitimate exploration expenses ?
And, the bigger issue, obviously, is that in doing the "exploration" work... the company and its officers who were paid to do that work... have FAILED to produce the required and (one hopes) intended result.
The fish in the SRSR/Nio-star barrel... do not appear to have any real reason for concern about being shot by SRSR/Nio-star management.
And, that requires asking penetrating questions about the NATURE of that failure that has occurred... and the reasons for it ? Serially failing to locate the grid... in spite of how stupidly easy that task is... and thus serially drilling holes in the wrong places... appears it could be a purposeful plan to fail.
That result has them NOT proving the resource first... BEFORE trying to proceed, now, in doing deals... with who ? And, they're proceeding to try to do deals too soon... on terms which we know nothing about ?
That is NOT what we signed up for in the vote taken back in 2011. Now, since Byrnes has run the company out of money and shares, while failing... as I noted he likely would at the time... we're told there is suddenly a need to do the deal FIRST... and only THEN proceed to prove the resource ? Or, proceed to do a deal based on delivering a much lesser resource than should have been easily proven... by competent management.
My first demand of the company: They must agree to NOT proceed to do any deal... without SRSR shareholders first being fully informed about the details of whatever it is being proposed, the terms, and who the participants are... BEFORE proceeding. There must be fully adequate transparency in any deals being PROPOSED... prior to proceeding. I include in that... that anyone "working for free" now... in exchange for promises of some future largess to be delivered by Nio-star management, only after the spin-out... those promises to award benefits later... must be disclosed, now.
The most recently announced changes to the current plans... are diametrically the opposite of what shareholders were led to expect previously, in terms of sequences in events... when the value to shareholders is very directly dependent on sustaining the proper sequences in events, which were previously outlined and describe as the substance of the company's plans. They now include contrary elements which appear intended to be directly subversive of the value that is attached to a SRSR share currently.
Second: Shareholders must be given the right to approve or reject management's now DRAMATICALLY CHANGED plans prior to proceeding. There should be no deal done... prior to SRSR shareholders being fully informed, and being given the opportunity to vote, again, approving or rejecting any plan to proceed DIFFERENTLY THAN BEFORE with ANY distribution of Nio-star shares... or any plan that includes expanding Nio-star's obligations.
Coming as that new plan does... following a serial delivery of demonstrable (and, provable) failures, directly and only credibly due to mis-management, with that resulting in the astonishing serial failure to prove the resource ? That occurring, repeatedly, in spite of there being only a laughably low bar to cross before proving the resource ?
It appears they might have failed on purpose... to enable themselves in doing whatever deal it is that is being proposed by them now (entirely without our knowledge or approval)... at a point PRIOR to proving the value ?
That change... beyond the damaging enough impact of the problem inherent in the mismanagement itself... would constitute a significant taking.
If that is what is happening... failing on purpose to enable doing a deal before proving the value ?
That's fraud.
The risk obviously is... that Nemegosenda HAS larger values than they are willing to allow... making it worth undertaking the effort in stealing it from you.
Third: It should go without saying. No deals that involve ANY ELEMENT of self dealing. That also requires, now, that the company must provide full transparency on all the promises that have been made... by SRSR or Nio-star's management... to anyone.
But, you also don't need for the failure that has occurred to be deliberate... for the impact of the current managements' plans to be apparent as deliberately destructive. The failure to prove the resource... does not excuse itself to justify proceeding without succeeding... which plan might well do very significant harm to the shareholders.
Back in 2011 we voted to approve allowing them to proceed in doing what was then being presented... which included proving the resource, FIRST, before considering dealing away any of the value of Nio-star. There were deals tabled... publicly announced... and the terms disclosed. Nothing less is adequate now.
And, that includes that nothing less than the TERMS discussed, then ? And, if those terms aren't readily available to us after the resource is proven... we should wait until they are.
I don't believe that the deal presented then is likely to be remotely close to or substantially the same as what is being presented now. I have noted, already, that the changes that have been announced by Dan Byrnes are directly destructive of the shareholders interest and shareholder value...
As it stands now... we know NOTHING about what is being proposed... who is involved... what the terms of any deal being done are supposed to be... and it appears to be to at least bordering on the practice of fraud... to pretend that the vote that was held in context of 2011 is still a legitimate or valid expression.
|
