Posted by Nescom on September 16, 1998 at 06:09:51:
News Release MDIN $0.095
Management update on legal proceedings
Filed against Dayton Mining Corporation (DAY) et al Defendants,
on July 17, 1998 in the State of Nevada, County of Washoe, USA.
Lake Elsinore, Ca., September 15, 1998 ... An affidavit was filed by Robert J. MacDonald, Senior VP and CFO of Dayton Mining Corporation, dated August 17, 1998 in support of Motion to Quash Service of the defendant Dayton Mining Corporation regarding Medinah Energy Inc., a Nevada Corporation, vs. Dayton Mining Corporation, a corporation, Dayton Mining (US) Inc., a Nevada corporation, DOES 1-5, Black Corporation 1-5.
The affidavit lists 17 points, the first 6 of which deal with the identity and qualifications of Mr. MacDonald. The remaining 11 are the reasons given by Dayton as reasons the case should be quashed. Points and counterpoints are as follows:
Point 7 states in part, that Dayton Mining Corporation does not transact business in the State of Nevada.
FACT - Dayton Mining Corporation is listed on an American Stock Exchange (AMEX) and thereby transacts business in the US every day of the week.
Point 8 states, in part, that Dayton Mining Corporation does not maintain any business address, office or its principal place of business in the State of Nevada.
FACT - any advertising, news release dissemination or the like via electronic, printed or other media which is available in the State of Nevada constitutes doing business in the State. Dayton also maintains a Nevada subsidiary corporation, Dayton Mining (US) Inc. of which Mr.
MacDonald is Secretary Treasurer.
The following points made in the affidavit have no apparent bearing on the complaint, which was filed by Medinah in Nevada. The complaint alleges in part, that "in or about June and July, 1998, Defendants published information in their Annual Report and in numerous press releases, through print and electronic media, indicating that Defendants and not Plaintiff, hold mineral titles and surface rights to the above referenced claims and properties." It is not clear to us why Dayton is making the following statements in this venue; however, we will address several of them.
Point 11 states that Dayton Mining Corporation does not own record title to any mining concessions, licenses, claims or other properties in Chile.
FACT - although this information may be of interest to shareholders, investors, etc., of Dayton, it is in conflict with information published in Annual Reports and news releases and has no bearing on the complaint filed by Medinah Energy Inc. For example, on pages 1 and 7 of the Dayton Mining Corporation Annual Report published this year, it is stated that Dayton's principle asset is its 100% ownership of the Andacollo gold mine located in central Chile.
Statements to the same effect are made in this and other publications by Dayton and by General Manager, Rex Outzen.
Point 12 states in part, Sierra la Plata S.A. is the wholly owned subsidiary company of the Plaintiff, Medinah Energy Inc.
FACT - true.
Point 13 states in part, certain properties in this action are not owned by the plaintiff, Medinah
Energy Inc. but are held or owned by Sierra la Plata, S.A., the wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff, Medinah Energy Inc.
FACT - true and the term "wholly owned" in this case constitutes ownership of the company and therefore, any and all assets and liabilities. Medinah does not deny responsibility and ownership of its assets in Chile to suit the need of the moment.
Point 15 states in part, there are now pending in the courts of Chile 12 legal proceedings concerning, directly or indirectly, the activities and operations of Compania Minera Dayton at the Andacollo Mine. The parties adverse to Compania Minera Dayton in the Chilean legal proceedings are the alleged grantors or optionors to Sierra la Plata S.A., the wholly owned subsidiary of Medinah Energy Inc. which purports to have acquired the rights, if any, of the adverse parties and the rights of first refusal to certain other properties alleged in paragraph 7 of the Complaint filed in this action.
FACT - Dayton has stated in published information that it owns all lands contained within its published boundaries and mine plan. Not according to this statement. The fact that there are outstanding lawsuits regarding the ownership of certain of these properties shows that Dayton does not own all lands contained within its published boundaries and mine plan. The fact of the lawsuits on the disputed Marilola, Encarnacion and Marijen (the Churumata claims) has been
fully disclosed by Medinah in news releases. Other claims mentioned in paragraph 7 of the complaint include the properties, Mercedes, Toro, Rodrigo, and Gabriella, all of which appear to be included in Dayton's published boundaries and mine plan. There are no lawsuits or disputes on these properties.
The actions of these Defendants (Dayton Mining Corp. and Dayton Mining [US] Inc.) in falsely and maliciously publishing information, without lawful occasion or excuse, has brought into question the Plaintiff's, Medinah Energy Inc. ownership of the Chilean properties referred to
above, and the plaintiff, Medinah has suffered loss and damage thereby, including but not limited to, loss of ability and opportunities to arrange financing and damage to its general reputation.
- 30 -
On behalf of the Board of Directors
Per: Larry Regis, President
For further information, contact Investor Relations at 1-800-547-9375 or
medinahenergy.com |
