Average Joe, hello there. I was just sort of catching up on what has been happening around here, haven't really been following for a while. I was reading Miles' post, re: conversation with DS, and then your assessment of same. I felt that you had seriously over reacted to the actual content of the post. I have made a few comments on the items in Miles' post # 2581 outlining why I do not believe the information to be any big deal, in legal terms.
The only thing in that post, that has any serious potential for being considered inappropriate, would be the comments about the funding. If a PP was actually completed, they would have to disclose that, in a timely manner, or there would be potential problems as a result. The rest is nothing more than speculative business philosophy.
I do not mean this to be personal, just an explanation of why I do not believe there is reason to be that critical of Miles' posting. I also see no content that I would find unusual, for a company to pass on to an inquizitive investor. Hence I am willing to bite off on the idea that the conversation did indeed take place.
Salut,
Leigh McBain
PS - I hope this is of some interest to those on the thread.
********************************************
Comments on,
Miles' item 1:
- to have had DS respond that there have been some delays in the commencement of the program, due to negotiations/discussions revolving around financing should not be considered undo disclosure. It does not offer an upper hand in way shape or form to the holder of the info, simply a minor explanation of one of the reasons why things are being held up.
Miles' item 2:
- the comment that they "have the first portion of the funds which will be in the form of a pp" suggests that it is NOT complete. If it is going to be "in the form of a pp", then the exchange will still have to approve it (how many shares at what price, etc.) and the funds are not likely to be "AVAILABLE", yet. For the company to suggest that they may want to arrange for additional future financings, in a form that would limit (possibly) the dilution of the stock, is something that they SHOULD be looking at, as part of their obligation of retention/building of shareholder value.
Miles' item 3:
- regarding new admin and/or IR, that seems to make sense from what I have been reading, but would hardly be considered "insider information", to be acted on by any form of regulatory or legal entity.
Miles' item 4:
- ongoing negotiations with potential new director. It was already common, public knowledge, that they had intentions of bringing on a new director. So since they have not yet announced the signing of said director, again it would be awfully difficult to justify raising any red flags, over the admission that they were still negotiating.
Miles' item 5:
- this relates back to item 2. Maybe it should not have been mentioned, at least until the pp has been completed, however, one would hope that the company does not plan on doing all of their share based financing, at the current level, so it is hardly inappropriate commentary.
Miles' item 6:
- this appears to be nothing more than a comment about when the company "hopes" to get the drilling underway. Not major definitive insider info. |
