REPLIES TO STOCK HACK-HOUSE STORY
Here are the reply posts tothe negative StockHouse story. I use the word story, because that is what it is, just a story, most of it made up, very little based on facts. This is not prudent researched reporting. It wouldn't surprise me if this article was engineered by Bowel Movement AKA Bob Moriarty. It amazes me that Stock House would stoop so low to publish this Hack Job. Read the series of replies from AU-HB which contain verifiable facts, unlike the spurious dispersions cast by Peter "HackHouse" Kennedy.
Yukon_Cornelius1
Furthermore for youruninformed readers- Bob Moriarty has an axe to grind. He's whining like alittle brat because HE didn't get his mitts on the Mkuvia property. Add that tothe bad blood between him and Sangha and you have the makings of a biasedreporter. He'll apparently stoop at nothing to tear down Douglas Lake. Mr.Kennedy, are you a friend of Bob by chance?
Yukon_Cornelius1
Peter Kennedy- are you awarethat DLKM owns about 40% of the shares of RBYC?
Yukon_Cornelius1
One last retort- for now.The Chinese sat on their hands re Mkuvia. Ruby Creek put up the goods and arecurrently testing equipment on the ground. China- no. NYC-$$ YES!! Take thatinto consideration investors.
AU_NB
Hatchet Job ! The Stockhouseorganization should be embarrassed about publishing, as news, a misleadingarticle which, without corroborating references, contains unsubstantiated,innuendo, misleading statements or inaccuracies about DLKM. As a newsorganization, with such publication, the credibility of Stockhouse may havebeen damaged and, perhaps, a potential liability may have been created.. TheArticle should be retracted. 1. First of all, one should listen to the RBYCpresentation of September 15,2010. https://www.wsw.com/webcast/rrshq18/rbycf.ob/
Bottom line... the Gold onthe Mkuvia property still appears to be there... and with increased potential.Bedrock has now found to be down to about 100 meters. Original trenching wasonly down less than 12 meters for the 43-101 on a small part of the Mkuviaproperty. Equipment is on site and is coming on site. Actions of a seriousdeveloper are being taken by RBYC. [ part 1]
AU_NB
2. The front page Stockhousearticle states: "Meanwhile, the company has raised eyebrows in somequarters by indicating that it may be trying to attract multiple parties toMkuvia, including investors from China." This would appear to be adisparagement of title. After the Chinese Investment group failed to sign orclose a Final Agreement, and after a definitive JV agreement was signed for aportion of the Mkuvia property, negotiations did continue for the remainder ofthe entire property with other parties, BUT NOT AFTER THE AGREEMENT FOR THEENTIRE PROPERTY WAS SIGNED WITH RUBY CREEK RESOURCES as is suggested by PeterKennedy, "a Stockhouse reporter and web content editor." The words, "maybe trying to attract" in the quotation above clearly indicates as a reportas fact that such alleged action is currently ongoing. [END OF PART 2]
AU_NB
DLKM negotiations withparties have not been duplicious or somehow illegal. First, negotiations withChinese investment group by DLKM in September 2009 for development of Mkuviawas subject only to a "Frame Work Agreement," not a definitive, bindingagreement. From the news release, DLKM does not appear to be precluded fromtalking with any other potential developer while it awaited for closure and afinal agreement within the Chinese Investor Group within a reasonable time."VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Sept. 23, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- DouglasLake Minerals Inc. (the "Company") (OTCBB:DLKME - News)(Frankfurt:D60 - News) is pleased to announce that it has signed a Frame WorkAgreement (the "Agreement") with respect to its Mkuvia Alluvial GoldProject in Tanzania." [End of Part 3]
AU_NB
Under the terms of theagreement, the Chinese group, unilaterally, retained the right not to proceedwith a binding agreement. Having the right to decide whether to continue withthe agreement would appear to include the right not to agree to finalize theAgreement at all. The document, after all, was not termed a Joint VentureAgreement. If both parties are not bound to an agreement, there is no bindingagreement. [End of Part 4]
AU_NB
Should the ChineseInvestment Group decide to discontinue investing in the JVC or withdraw fromthe JVC, the Company shall have the right of first refusal to purchase theinterest of the Chinese Investment Group in the JVC. If exploration resultsshow that the explored properties cannot be mined economically, the ChineseInvestment Group shall have right to sell or transfer or withdraw. For thoseparts of interests of the Chinese Investment Group unable to be sold ortransferred, the Chinese Investment Group will revert back to the Company withno penalties." [End of Part 5]
AU_NB
The obligation to close theproposed Agreement was conditional: "* The two parties' obligations toclose the transaction will be subject to customary conditions, including, butnot limited to: -- completion of the Chinese Investment Group's due diligenceon Mkuvia Alluvial properties; -- receipt of all necessary third partyapprovals including, but not limited to, all relevant government approvals; --receipt of approvals for the transaction and, if applicable, shareholders'meetings of the two parties;"https://www.24hgold.com/english/viewarticle.aspx?id=490856 [emphasis added] [Endof Part 6]
AU_NB
While the Chinese Investmentgroup delegation did arrive on the Mkuvia property for the proposed purpose ofconducting due a dilligence investigation, ( see www.douglaslakeminerals.com.News Release dated September 23, 2009) nothing appears to have happened. Noformal announcement was made subsequently that the diligence investigation wascompleted or completed to the satisfaction of the Chinese Investment Group. Noclosing of the "Frame Work Agreement" was ever consumated, reportedor announced. Not having consumated and final, definitive, binding agreement,it would appear that DLKM was not restricted from negotiating with any otherpotential JV partner for development of all or part of the Mkuvia property.[End of Part 7]
AU_NB
3. On November 9, 2009 asubsequent, a signed Joint Venture Agreement was announced with Ruby Creek fordevelopment of approximately one-third (1/3) of the Mkuvia property. "ThisRuby Creek Agreement, covering approximately one-third of the Mkuvia property,provides the company with a non-dilutive source of financing while retainingmore than two-thirds of the area covered by the 380 square kilometers of its 4prospecting licenses. The Company is actively pursuing and has initiateddiscussions with other potential joint venture partners, including theinvestment group from China, mentioned in prior news releases." SeeDouglas Lake website, News Release November 09, 2009. [www.douglaslakeminerals.com.[End of Part 8]
AU_NB
4. So as of November 2009,as was acknowledged in the above News Release, DLKM was negotiating with otherparties but, no subsequent definitive agreements were announced or reportedbetween DLKM and any other party regarding the development of any of theremaining 2/3 of the Mkuvia property before the conclusion of and theannouncement of the Agreement with Ruby Creek for the entire Mukuvia propertywhich was submitted as a Form 8 reporting to the SEC six months later on May19, 2010. Form 8: Ruby Creek Resources, Inc. and Douglas Lake MInerals Inc. May19, 2010 Purchase Agreement, 255 Sq Km - Mkuvia Property, Tanzania"Overview: [End of Part 9]
AU_NB
Ruby Resources Inc. andDouglas Lake Minerals Inc. completed an Agreement dated November 7, 2009,whereby Ruby Creek purchased 70% of 125 sq km (one third) of the MkuviaAlluvial Gold Project in Tanzania formed for the development of gold andmineral production. "This is an Agreement between Ruby Creek Resources,Inc. and Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. whereby Ruby Creek purchases 70% of theremaining 255 sq km (two thirds) of the Mkuvia Alluvial Gold Project. "Theend result of the foregoing agreements is the ownership of a 70% interest inthe entire Mkuvia Alluvial Gold Project." [End of Part 10]
AU_NB
From the SEC requireddocument, Form 8, it is quite clear that there can be no further negotiation onany of the Mkuvia property because all of it is now subject to finalized agreements,and, thus, no negotiations can be outstanding or ongoing. Yet the Stockhouseemployee found it appropriate to entitle his article, "Shares up despiteabsence of news on Tanzanian gold property negotiations," and to statewithout to reference what particular time when multiple discussions wereconducted or being conducted: "Meanwhile, the company has raised eyebrowsin some quarters by indicating that it may be trying to attract multipleparties to Mkuvia, including investors from China." Suggesting thatnegotiations are still being conducted with other parties, thereby slanderingproperty interest or title, is contrary to filed, reported fact anddisingenuous at the very least. [End of Part 11]
AU_NB
So, regardless of what theauthor may think about the top management of DLKM, the shareholders of DLKM, aswell as other parties whose title and other interests are attacked, wouldappear to have reason to feel that their separate interests have been harmed.The act of publication of the article, in the form of a supposed report offacts, could possibly place the Stockhouse organization directly in the path ofpotential legal action for disparagement of title and possibly other libelactions. Since the Over-all Title is "Short Report: Is Douglas Lake Poisedto Fall?," and given the above, one wonders if the article also could beconsidered a form of manipulation. [End]
sunshine204
Dubious start to the"Short Report"! For one, how exactly does the retail investor (thepresumed audience at Stockhouse) actually go about shorting an OTCBB companytrading at 30 cents? For two, the "report" for the most part doesraise valid concerns but unfortunately the lack of research into the propertydealings along with some embarrassingly clueless statements have badly marredthe effort. Is there anybody at Stockhouse who doesn't ROTFL at a statementlike "market cap of $21.3 million . . . seems high for a company that isengaged in risky, early stage mineral exploration and has generated nooperating revenue since its inception"? Next time please feature a companythat can actually be shorted and make sure to use a fact checker.