Re: Le Furlong Letter
Thank you for posting this. Please do not be offended by the next paragraph.
Disclaimer: the contents of this posting are based on a letter that has been represented as having been written by Le Furlong. I have not verified that the letter, or the following excerpt was written by him, or any other officer, employee, or director of IPM. My reaction and opinions regarding this letter are only valid to the extent the letter is genuine.
EXCERPT FROM 19 NOVEMBER LETTER:
* A fire assay procedure developed by AuRIC was also announced to the meeting for Black Rock material. The assay grades AuRIC were suggesting were attractive (being about 0.10 oz/t gold) and we welcomed this breakthrough. Unfortnuately during the following 2 months we and other independent labs were unable to duplicate the assay methodology, thus it failed to live up to the 'due diligence' by IPM. The procedure was therefore abondoned and the purchase agreement with AuRIC cancelled.
THIS IS EXTRAORDINARILY UPSETTING!
Keep in mind that IPM saw fit to publicize its relationship with AuRIC and to publish a press release (24 June) touting the results of AuRIC-developed assays. According to the above excerpt, the assay methodology was found to be non-reproducable by the beginning of September. Presumably, the termination of the AuRIC relationship occurred soon after.
Please forgive my shouting :-O
I DON'T RECALL A PRESS RELEASE TO THIS EFFECT! IF THIS LETTER IS GENUINE (see my disclaimer above), WE HAVE TWO ITEMS OF MATERIAL INFORMATION THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT MAKE PUBLIC FOR OVER TWO MONTHS!
I have read many posts to the effect that Federal Securities law requires prompt reporting of negative material information. Such disclosure was, obviously, not made in this case.
If the information was important enough to be publicized in the first place, subsequent news on the matter became, ipso facto, material. Oh, yeah: IMHO, and I'm not an attorney.
Pý |
