Green news
PacificOre dissidents point out board resignations
2013-05-14 09:33 ET - Shareholders Letter
Mr. Wim Bakker of the concerned shareholders reports
MAJORITY OF THE BOARD AND CEO RESIGN SINCE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS RAISE AWARENESS OF FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES
Since the concerned shareholders, or vocal minority as we are referenced by the non-mandated board, raised awareness of the financial irregularities taking place in PacificOre Mining Corp. on April 1 of this year, the majority of the board has resigned as well as its chief executive officer. And, let there be no mistake, spending in excess of $10-million in administration costs since 2005 versus exploration costs is a financial irregularity in our books, even if your financial statements happen to be audited.
Further, since the company's last annual general meeting, all the directors have resigned except for Christian Derosier. He is the sole director who appears to be willing to stand accountable for the company's past record. Mr. Derosier, apart from the resigning CEO, was also the director who most benefited receiving in excess of $75,000 in fees the past year when the company spent less than $300,000 in total exploration costs. It is in his personal financial interest to continue with the company.
However, Mr. Derosier's financial interests don't just lie with your company. He has also been the lead technical advisor for a company called Cavan Ventures Inc. having been their qualified person for their last half dozen technical news releases. His compensation and stock option package for Cavan Ventures is not public information.
The company's appointment now of two of the directors of Cavan Ventures raises some serious questions of independence and whether there is some undisclosed plan involved. The parties should state clearly and publicly their professional relationships and their financial involvement. Further, are these parties just nominees of Mr. Derosier's and another attempt to entrench himself? Is there some undisclosed plan with Cavan Ventures, as it now appears the majority of them are attempting to control your company?
In direct response to the news release put out the by the non-mandated board of directors of the company:
Public company directors must be held accountable to shareholders, you cannot hide behind privacy laws.
Shareholders are encouraged to hold your directors responsible directly. Those that don't want to be held responsible should not be directors.
The concerned shareholders have publicly stated on several occasions that it would have won the vote at the company's AGM if it were allowed to proceed. This information has never been contradicted by the board and if they believed they would have won there would have been no reason to cancel the meeting.
The concerned shareholders have made several formal offers of settlement on April 17, May 2 and May 5 to the board taking into consideration their concerns with not even the courtesy of a response or an acknowledgment to any of them. No formal offer has ever been received by the concerned shareholders from the board, contrary to their assertion.
We are encouraged that the board intends to have its AGM as soon as it can. Shareholders should be aware that a shareholders meeting can be organized in 10 minutes. The earliest date would be approximately July 13 and would give the board two weeks to prepare its meeting materials. The question to ask is why have they not called the meeting yet?