Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Exall Resources/Glimmer Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James N. Wilson who wrote (467)	1/29/1998 7:56:00 AM
From: Mayer Tchelebon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1319

According to a Financial Post article this morning (page 7), the two companies seem to disagree on what the judge meant. GME's interpretation is that the fees in question (about $4 million) can only be calculated on the basis of the actual costs of running the mine, not at the 15% rate charged by Exall. The article also says that "both companies insist their calculations show they own more than 50% of the mine". Mayer

To: James N. Wilson who wrote (467)	1/29/1998 3:06:00 PM
From: James N. Wilson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1319

Glimmer surprised by Exall press release Glimmer Resources Inc GME Shares issued 5240412 1998-01-28 close $1.2 Thursday Jan 29 1998 Also Exall Resources Limited (EXL) Mr Richard McCloskey reports Glimmer notes with surprise the press release of Exall Resources January 28 1998 (Stockwatch January 29) as to the outcome of a further Ontario Court (General Division) hearing on January 26 and January 27, 1998 concerning its joint venture agreement. Exall has been charging a flat 15% of total costs as a "management fee" to the joint venture and has treated a portion of that fee as part of its cash contribution used to calculate its ownership interest. At issue in court was the propriety of this fee. The Honourable Mr Justice Rosenberg rejected Exall's argument that the fee was proper and stated that Exall was entitled to its demonstrated costs of supervision only, to a maximum of 15%. Glimmer anticipates that the demonstrated costs will be substantially less than the credit Exall has already taken. Mr Justice Rosenberg also directed that a further court proceeding - a "reference" - consider which of the approximately $337,000 of costs ("certain engineering costs") paid by Exall and charged to the joint venture as opposed to properly for the account of Exall alone. Finally, Mr Justice Rosenberg addressed the issue as to whether the ownership interest of a joint venturer which has been diminished by virtue of its failure to make monthly cash contributions can be restored by way of subsequent contribution in excess of a cash call. Mr Justice Rosenberg rejected Exall's argument that such restoration (claw back) of an interest was possible. The reference will ascertain the parties' respective ownership interest on the basis of the principles set out by the court on January 26 and 27 1998 and those set out in the court's reasons given in October of 1997 ( Stockwatch October 30 1997). Glimmer expects this decision to have a significant positive impact on Glimmer's interest in the Glimmer mine joint venture. Whether Exall's interest fell below 50% and, thus, whether Glimmer is entitled to become operator of the joint venture, will be determined on the reference. The Glimmer mine is in Hislop and Beatty townships near Matheson, Ontario, began production in April 1997 and has produced in excess of 34,000 ounces of gold to November 30 1997. Operating costs were $US220.00 per ounce in November. Glimmer is a mining and mineral exploration company which is an interest holder in the Glimmer mine.