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 : GMD RESOURCE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Seavey who wrote (555)	1/30/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: Luisa G.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1030

Hi Rick, your article doesn't really give a good picture. Have you ever experienced this type of situation before? I can't imagine that this would take so long to resolve. But who knows, in 8 months gold may be flying and the impact will not be so drastic. (just a wishfull thinking) Louisa G.

To: Rick Seavey who wrote (555)	2/2/1998 3:53:00 AM
From: Cal Powers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1030

Rick, You sound like you've been burned before. This situation isn't a salt job or false assay results. It's the issue of three inter-related companies engaging in non-arms length transactions involving monies. GMD loaned some monies to LMX and Farrell Financial(some flowed through to LMX) so that LMX could continues to drill for oil in some place called Newfoundland(a Canadian province) and operate some small mines in Mexico, as well as continue exploration there. GMD has successfully raised financing for it's own projects but LMX has not. Likely under pressure from somewhere, the GMD gang thought it was OK for LMX to raise their required financing from them. They probably thought LMX could repay the loans quickly from the operating mines in Mexico. It doesn't appear that Farrell embezzled $3,000,000 as the LMX financial statements as at August 31, 1997 report, Note 6. Loans Payable to GMD and Farrell totalling $1,826,207. Monies after this date were also loaned to loaned to LMX but would be reported on their future financial statements for that period. The sale of GMD and LMX shares during the period in question will be reviewed by the VSE to determine if there were any illegal trades occurring. In another time, LMX might have been able to raise financing for their project but in 1997 its was difficult for most juniors. I don't agree that GMD loaned the monies to Farrell Financial or LMX in the way they did. They (GMD) probably knew the VSE would block it so they 'overlooked' reporting it on a 'timely' basis hoping that they might get a 'slap on the wrist' when they did. Unfortunately for them, the VSE thought that some LMX/GMD directors deserved a much more severe punishment such as forced resignations, public humiliation, and possible other penalties. Ultimately, I think that GMD is in better hands with Webb and Hess. At least these guys are actual mining people, not promoters like some of the others. Their prospects for 1998 are still valid. The Royce Properties are a diamond play and diamonds are the flavour of the year up in the north. A substantial multi-million dollar exploration program was planned for 1998 and funds exist to finance the program. Millions have been spent on drilling and infilling the Discovery Mine, and all of it done by knowledgeable, competent geologists and mining people (remember that Farrell was the promoter, not the geologist). The former were not going to risk their reputation putting numbers together that weren't truthful in light of the Bre-X and GNU debacles last year. Rumours currently exist that they are close to completing their reserve estimate, which will be around the 2 million mark. Gold is not in vogue these days, so this may not help share price anyway, but it will be a number that some majors might be interested in as they scout around to buy up juniors. If Mr. Metals estimate of opening at .05cents is accurate (which it most certainly will not be), then I'm going in for all I can get. I'm confident in the mining guys, the projects, the financing, and the VSE and will be hoping to pick up some devalued stock when some people on this thread and elsewhere sell-off when trading re-opens. Cal

To: Rick Seavey who wrote (555)	2/2/1998 3:11:00 PM
From: VAUGHN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1030

Hello Rick I am obviously as disgusted with the situation as you are Rick, but I am not convinced we are talking about a tanking of the stock. I am also not convinced that we are talking embezzlement, subject to the findings of an investigation. An inapproptiate use of company funds inconsistent with the long or short term objectives of the company and certainly inadaquately securred, for which there can be no excuse. Failing to duely protect the interests of shareholders and/or assets of the company. I agree, the remaining Directors have an obligation to explain why this loan was approved with their knowledge. Failing an adaquate explaination, once new management is in place, they should commit to resignation. I can't imagine that new management could presume to survive and/or avoid charges should they even consider absolving past management of personal responsibility for obligations and/or benefits, should it be proven that any criminal activity has occurred and/or personal benefit or debt, foregiven. Under such a sham, I would expect the VSE to appoint an interim CEO and very possibly commence procedings on behalf of shareholders, possibly even revoking the companies rights to trade on the exchange. In the current environment, they certainly would not want to be seen as soft on any such issues. If Farrel and LMX have any smarts, they will be making immediate arrangements to repay these misappropriated funds as I type. Regardless, the assets are real and the company is (was) trading at a considerable discount to book, irrespective of last year's gold price, future price or the potential of Royce. Any liquidation, subject to debts, should realize a decent return on equity. In the absence of management action, do not discount the possibility of a class action by shareholders, on behalf of shareholders, especially american shareholders, to collect these debts. Regards