The meeting.............................................
On Nov 1 at approximately 9 am I met with Les Price of MDHM for approximately one hour and twenty minutes.
The following comments are not quotations rather they have been paraphrased.
It should be noted that after the coffee was poured and small talk ended,
Les opened with the following comment,
LP So you are a friend of Frank Cerney's
John No, as a matter of fact if Frank walked through those doors right now I would not know who he was. I have never met the guy.
LP Let me explain the situation with Frank and..
John With all due respect Les, I do not care about Frank, Is he a director or officer of MDHM?
LP No he has nothing to do with MDHM.
John Good now that this is established, I could care less about Frank's past, and frankly Les you're past is well documented and I do not want to discuss it, but I have some questions as follows............
FINANCIALS and SHARE STRUCTURE
John Why don't we start with the annual meeting, MDHM directors obviously had a plan going to the meeting asking for an increase in share capital to 200 million. You settled for 150 million, how do you intend to make up the short fall of 50 million that was not authorized? Won't you be short money?
LP Our lawyer advised us that it cost the same in the state of Nevada to issue a 100 million or 50 million thus he advised issuing the 100 million. All we really need is 50 million.
John Seems strange to me that a securities lawyer knowing that great amounts of dilution has already occurred would give you this advice since the asking of this type of increase in share capital eventually leads to more share dilution?
LP Yup, but that's the advice we got.
I then made a comment that share capital increase is probably better then a rollback, but frankly they are one and the same thing.........
Les indicated to me that he was against rollbacks,
I made the comment that WAMC was taken over, name changed to CDCH and the next thing that happened was a rollback, I also stated that I am here to discuss MDHm so I do not care about CDCH so lets continue with MDHM............
John Les two years ago it was leaked that MDHM would be fully reporting, now before you answer I spent 4 years at the U of A in Edmonton studying to be a Chartered Accountant. I found the field very dry but I do know it does not take 2 plus years to audit financial statements, so what's the problem?
LP You're right it does not. Let me say that we had all the Chile companies and the statements were in Spanish and Pesos.
John Well o kay a calculator and a currency conversion table would take care of the pesos. A translator can take of the Spanish. Suffice to say that the claim of becoming fully reporting in the past was a good intention which never happened. The fact is Les, the rumor was started in this office thus giving MDHM further credibility problems. So MDHM has not filed form 10 are you going to file on time?
LP Yes we are.
John Great.
We are now moving on, whew!!!!!!!!
ALL THE COMPANIES
John Les why all the companies, NPEC, MDHM, CDCH and now the talk of a Nasdaq shell? Are you in the mining business? Or the issuing of stock in public companies business?
LP We have stripped everything down to leave the two properties in MDHM because of the Dayton lawsuit.
John O kay, please explain this situation.
LP Well at the moment the Dayton lawsuit involves Medinah Gold only.
John In other words MDHM is not involved in any way?
LP That is correct, we had to seperate the properties in dispute as no funding would be available to MDHM
John Good, in other words I personally do not have to worry about this suit as Dayton has NO CLAIMS against MDHM.
LP That is correct
John Les this Nasdaq shell thing kinda bothers me, if the property is so good why not just file to become fully reporting and prove the property up. I think this Nasdaq shell thing is some type of smoke screen and frankly Bull $hit.
LP Well the Nasdaq listing will give us more broker participation in the market.
John O kay Les fine I can see that point of view, however it once again appears that you are moving paper....... are you not trying to prove a property up and build a mine? If you have the goods on the property it does not matter where it is listed. And if you want, once proven up the company will be able to get a Nasdaq listing.
LP good point. I would say that if a Nasdaq listing or in this case the merger is easy we should do it. However if it proves costly and time consuming we probably will not proceed.
I am now going to post this however the next post will have the,
SHORT POSITION DISCUSSION, PROPERTY MINERAL RIGHTS ALONG WITH ACCESs TO THE PROPERTY, THE DOPPLER SITUATION
I think that might do it...........
Nope the DRILLING PROGRAM DISCUSSION WILL ALSO FOLLOW.
Does anyone want to read a blow by blow of my GOLF GAME yesterday?????????? LOL. |
