RE: RE: RE: LCC already owns 50% of Francisco I & Apologies for my brief response. I want to reply but I don't have a lot of time to do it.
3. If only it was to do with my mood. The problem here is that few people believe the information and it generates a whole load of work for me trying to explain it. A lot of information is from what I've heard from trusted people. It is not documented. It is not something that I can prove. But I know that the information is good. It is not "inside information" but it is as close as one can get to the inside and it can certainly come across as such.
4. The point I was trying to make is that LCC has a responsibility to inform its shareholders of the JV, via a press release, because it does not have full control of the two JV'd claims. Even if they were 100 per cent owned by LCC they still have a duty to inform their shareholders when these claims were bought (which they failed to do) and also when they intended to explore them (which they have also failed to do). Failure to inform the shareholders of what are significantly important JV'd claims is a lack of respect to the shareholders. Basically, LCC does not think that its shareholders are worth the effort of being informed about the JV. They are also discourteous to CCD by not mentioning the JV in a press release. Hence why I concluded that the reason that they didn't press release it was to avoid giving free publicity to CCD (and I think that is why LCC did what it did, because they believe that it is in the best interests of their shareholders, but the shareholders are not given the opportunity to decide for themselves).
If you have ever owned shares in Hecla you would know how disrespectful Hecla has been to its shareholders. LCC is behaving in a similar way to Hecla. It needs to be more open about these deals. Moreover, it took the trouble to mention the acquisition of a small concession but has failed to mention what is a significant JV.