Thanks for the link JJB:
<<Also, the complaint claims that Solv-Ex failed to disclose to
shareholders that the company issued 3 million shares of stock to
Rendall for the purpose of obtaining financing for the company. Because of that, Solv-Ex understated the number of its issued and outstanding shares, the complaint states. >>
I wonder if these are the margined shares that ML sold?
The stuff regarding the oil sands is old news, IMO. The SEC does not seem to be alleging anything that many didn't already think or believe long ago. Interestingly, the SEC does not seem to be claiming, based on that news article, that the extraction technology is technologically flawed or patently worthless, just that there was no basis to claim commercial viability: again, IMO, no real surprise. The net effect may be the same though. (Caveat: it is hard to know how accurate or thorough the news article was).
The alumina stuff seems to be new.....does anyone have any info on whether the 1996 test failed? How, if at all, does or will this affect the "memos of understanding?"
It wouldn't surprise me if this suit delayed resolution of the bankruptcy. In any event, it looks like Solv will get to spend some, if not a significant portion, of it existing capital defending this lawsuit. I would also bet that Solv (and thus the shareholders) get to pick up the tab for defending JR and HC as well.
How about this for a (somewhat tongue in cheek) settlement: JR and HC give all of the existing shareholders all of their stock in Solv, agree not to take any more until Solv at least begins producing revenue, or, even better, begins making a profit, and get no more than a nominal fixed salary....maybe its time for them to truly work FOR the shareholders and not for the company, which they may currently think is the same as working for themselves. There are more than 100 million reasons that this is a good idea.
Troy |
