RE:Management's disappointing responsePat4Popodopolou wrote: Management responded to the requisitioning shareholders this morning.
Instead of addressing the accusation of denying other interested parties the opportunity to complete due diligence and bid, management chose to sling mud at an attempt to discredit the accusers. I don’t know about this - it seems like a distraction. Why not progress by simply addressing the claim? Was there 1 or more groups who were prevented the required access to conduct due diligence and provide a competing bid? Yes or no? Simple question. If no, and no one can be brought forward to show otherwise then I think the accusation can be put to rest. If yes, then management and directors should step down and we should thank the requisitioners for calling foul. After all they have only claimed what is best for all shareholders – truth and transparency? Judging from this latest response, management has something to hide. Time to join in the call for truth (or just vote for the impressive replacements and move forward). Oh, and if there are groups still looking to conduct due diligence let’s get them access. I believe something appealing (and accretive) will be put forward. It is a promising and very marketable asset after all. There are bound to be better synergies with companies that are not just in the Yukon, but perhaps in Nevada and without lawsuits (today’s news: GPY filed a 2nd suit).
i totally agree .Seems a little fishy that Hesketh had his fingers in both pies.
where did you find there mudslinging and there 2nd lawsuit