RE: NEWS out !!!KerBer,
From the outset, I was expecting just this sort of performance from Inspiration and Miller. The way things are, I was afraid that with Forbes & Manhattan's involvement, the Dissidents might succeed in getting control of the company. It is now clear as to the calibre and ethics of the leadership UMJ would have been subjected to, had the Dissidents been successful. The last thing a growing company (with need for capital financing) needs is management that has been found to engage in "reprehensible conduct" to achieve its goals.
Although the Dissident group has been hit with this unusually severe Court awarded penalty, it in no way makes up for all the costs incurred by URSA. As well as the direct costs, it has caused management to focus on unnecessary and non-productive legal conflicts, rather than mining operations. This is the same curse that Miller constantly inflicts on his own company. Hopefully this blunt condemnation by a Justice of Ontario Superior Court will further damage Inspiration's (and Forbes & Manhattan's) reputation to the extent that they will not attempt their antics in the future.
I think it is worth repeating that UMJ and Richard Sutcliffe came through this episode earning high marks. UMJ management made strategic decisions, including the selection of advisors and allies, that will stand them in good stead in the future. This failed attempt by Inspiration and F&M received media coverage, where normal activities by small mining companies are usually ignored. Just as Inspiration and F&M were humiliated by this coverage, the actions of UMJ and Wesley Hall were vindicated. This will not show immediate results in the share price - but in the future it is something that could be very beneficial if UMJ is arranging major financing or support by another company . To put it in perspective, how would you like to be going to the market for financing with ISM/Miller's track record! For that reason, ISM dumping their position as a significant shareholder would be a plus for UMJ - and if ISM continues to hold their position, considering any Board representation related to the ISM ownership position should never be considered.
This Court decision is a win for the good guys - something that happens too infrequently.