Monument Mining Ltd. V.MMY

Deposit for Due Diligence

[nozzpack]

In the normal course of business , the Due Diligence fee  paid by the buyer directly  to the seller is kept by the seller.


That is , If the deal closes, the buyer will have that amount credited back to them at closing. But either way, in normal business ,that amount up front is the sellers to keep. The reason for this is two fold.....it takes time and money to set up the data room, and the buyer usually has exclusivity , excluding any competing bids while due diligence is done .

For this reason, the seller normally wants the due diligence period to be short.

In the transaction event on July 30, it was stated that the deposit was to be refunded, if due diligence was negative .

Its more than two months now since due diligence began.
This is rather a prolonged period of time in which competing bids cannot be entertained.

To me, this does not pass the smell test .

In my opinion ,It's either a fake or the transaction that was set up for nefarious reasons.I can guess one of these reasons right away.

After Oct 28, it's highly probable that several key executives will have been voted out of office.
At that point in time, the existence of that transaction and the parties involved can be verified.

Publishing fraudulent information intended to deceive has criminal implications.
 

As the annual financials and its contents are approved by the BOD, they too would probably be considered party to the deceit.

[nozzpack]

This conditional offer, being legalized in hard copy,  was essentially a very definitive LOI ( Letter of Intent ) backed up by $3.75 million US which is $5 m in cad. As these so called break fees are almost always in the 1 to 3% of gross value, this offer was substantial even at a 3% break fee ( $5 million times 100 / 3% =  $165 million CAD....the entire company ). Exchange regulations

[jim96]

Hi nozzpack, I tend to favor the other causes, maybe just partnership to develop the Murchison Gold Projects, or Peranghi. From the news releases, it seems these guys are actively looking for fund to develop projects.

[nozzpack]

It's possible. But, I doubt that a partnership to develop Murchison would need shareholder approval. Also, the break fee seems rather large relative to the putative value of Murchison ( about $40 m CAD on the books ).  Murchison could be part of the package sold to a second buyer......or spun off to Monument shareholders who would also hold the NSR  / streaming arrangement and

[jim96]

Hi nozzpack, My voting package doesn't say we vote for this transaction. Also, how do you learn the deposit is the breakup fee? You may worry too much your mult- millions shares will go under the water.

[nozzpack]

Of course the transaction is not on the agenda of the AGM. Did you not read my post and the AGM proxy agenda. Further, you obviously did not read the portion of the Annual Report in which the LOI transaction was mentioned . Otherwise, you would not be making statements of issues which you have no clue. Next time, do some of your own research before you ask questions whose answers are easily

[romara]

jim96.... if you believe mozzpack has millions of shares.... you must still believe in Santa Claus ... What was posted on SEDAR: CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MONUMENT MINING LIMITED (Expressed in thousands of United States dollars) For the years ended June 30, 2020and 2019 Para 30. "Subsequent Events On July 30,2020, subsequent to the year ended June 30, 2020, $3.75 million

[tsoprano24]

Richard, are you still reading that as we gave someone money? We are the company that received the money for someone to look at our books.  T

[nozzpack]

T that is correct. A deposit which will be refunded if final due diligence is negative. Otherwise it will be part of the acquisition price, whatever that might be..

[romara]

No... I am just showing the actual writing in the noted paragraph .... not some twisted hearsay thoughts......   Richard

[oilgashappy]

The actual writing, to me anyway, indicates that Monument RECEIVEs the fund$