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 : Royal International Venture RIL.V (was Labrador Int'l LAB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Osprey who wrote (3121)	1/24/1999 2:36:00 PM
From: Tommy D	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 3380

The interesting thing about the NR is there was no mention of any action against the company that performed the PEM tests. I do not believe it is acceptable to merely say the tests were in error. Too many investors relied on the information put forward as if the tests had not been so positive, there likely would not have been the interest in the Lab property. Lab should, on behalf of its shareholders, be suing Donner and or the the company which performed the tests. If Lab does not, the shareholders may wish to force Lab to sue. In many jurisdictions (I don't know about B.C.), the Corporations Act provides a mechanism for the shareholders to take action on behalf of the Company. It is referred to as a derivative action. Donner or the testing company may have little in the way or assets but usually, there is an insurer lurking around somewhere. I intend to send a letter to the company and to the directors and suggest that they consider this course of action. I will also be suggesting that they owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and to not investigate the option to sue and to not proceed could be viewed as a breach of fiduciary duty and they personally could be held accountable. I will advise as to any response that I may receive. Regards TommyD