dr.lowlifetypical scumbag mentality there spot , just a dirty dog seeing what you can tear off from somebody else .
don't care that if it's a con artist facilitating the swindle and who gets hurt .
you are a punk with a void character and criminal mentality .
how far do these scum go before they land in prison ? they've honed it to a craft with the sicking vancouver exchange allowing the robbery DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE WORST OFFENDERS RUN THE WHOLE SCAM.
I got outa this rotten to the core garbage play long ago but still see it's trading and can't believe the fools keep coming to give their money away .
Policy Documents
Decisions & Orders
| Document Sub-category: |
Cease Trade Orders (Failure To File) |
| Document No.: |
2006/07/06 |
| Subject: |
International Ranger Corp. [Cease Trade Order] |
| Amendments: |
|
| Published Date: |
07/06/2006 |
| Effective Date: |
07/06/2006 |
 |
|
______________________________
Click on the Adobe icon to launch the Acrobat Reader
2006 BCSECCOM 412
Cease Trade Order
International Ranger Corp.
Section 164 of the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418
¶ 1 International Ranger Corp. (Ranger) was incorporated in 1998 under the laws of Nevada and its head office and senior management are located in British Columbia.
¶ 2 Shares of Ranger have traded actively on the Pink Sheets. Between January 1 and June 29, 2006, about 62 million shares of Ranger were traded on that market at prices ranging from US
.05 to US
.28.
¶ 3 On January 10, 2006, Ranger announced the acquisition of rights to the Foghorn Polymetallic Project (Foghorn) which is a mineral property material to Ranger.
Lack of Technical Report
¶ 4 Between January 19 and June 5, 2006, Ranger issued at least five news releases disclosing various estimates of mineral resources and mineral reserves for Foghorn. Ranger has not filed a compliant independent technical report in support of its disclosure of mineral resources and mineral reserves. This contravenes
s. 4.2(1)(i) and s. 5.3(1)(c) of National Instrument 43-101
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101).
¶ 5 In its January 19, 2006 news release, Ranger disclosed projections of mine life and production rates for Foghorn. Ranger also caused a research article and an interview to be published that disclosed preliminary assessments, as defined in
NI 43-101. Ranger has not filed a compliant independent technical report in support of its disclosure of the preliminary assessments. This contravenes
s. 4.2(1)(i) and s. 5.3(1)(c) of NI 43-101.
Context of Scientific and Technical Disclosure:
Inappropriate Use of Technical Terms
¶ 6 In its news releases and on its website, Ranger used technical terms in a manner that contravened s. 2.2(a) of NI 43-101. For example:
1. the term mineral reserves was used without the support of at least a preliminary feasibility study,
2. the terms “resources” and “reserves” were used interchangeably, and
3. non-compliant resource and reserve categories were used.
¶ 7 Ranger disclosed the quantity and grade of a deposit that was not categorized using Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum categories, which is prohibited under s. 2.3(1)(a) of NI 43-101.
Lack of Required Disclosure
¶ 8 Ranger failed to provide information required under s. 2.4 for historical estimates. They failed to provide the information required under s. 3.4 for mineral resources and mineral reserves, including details of the key assumptions, parameters and methods used.
¶ 9 Ranger did not include in its written disclosure the name and relationship to Ranger of the qualified person who prepared or supervised the preparation of the scientific and technical information that forms the basis of Ranger’s disclosure for Foghorn, in contravention of s. 3.1 of NI 43-101.
Inappropriate Use of Engineering Studies
¶ 10 In its January 19, 2006 news release and on its website, Ranger discloses projections of mine life and mine production rates based on a feasibility study attributed to Wright Engineering and Kilborn Engineering. A review by Commission Staff determined that the Kilborn Engineering study was dated 1977 and the Wright Engineering study was separate and dated 1987. The studies are not current and are not feasibility studies, as defined in NI 43-101.
¶ 11 Ranger did not disclose that the Wright Engineering and Kilborn Engineering studies were not current or feasibility studies. Ranger’s use of the term “feasibility study” is prohibited under s. 2.3(4) of NI 43-101.
¶ 12 In its June 5, 2006 news release, Ranger represented it received a 43-101 report for Foghorn from Nicholson and Associates (the Nicholson Report) and disclosed information from this report. However, the certificate of the Nicholson Report stated that the Nicholson Report was not prepared according to NI 43-101, contrary to Ranger’s disclosure.
Misrepresentation of Uranium Sample
¶ 13 Ranger caused two research articles to be published incorrectly representing that uranium mineralization up to 0.901% U3O8 had been found on its Whiskey Gap mineral project. This value was actually from a sample taken on a property tens of kilometres away owned by Firestone Ventures Inc, an unrelated company. The sample was of isolated organic debris and not representative of any known mineralization.
¶ 14 Ranger issued several news releases and posted information on its website relating to exploration on its Whiskey Gap mineral project. A review by Commission Staff determined that Ranger did not disclose the information and details required for exploration results under s. 3.2 and s. 3.3 of NI 43-101.
Order
¶ 15 Under section 164(1) of the Act, the Executive Director orders that all trading in the securities of Ranger cease until:
1. it files the required technical report, completed in accordance with the Act and the regulations, and
2. the Executive Director makes an order under section 171 of the Act revoking this order.
¶ 16 July 6, 2006
Martin Eady, CA
Director
Corporate Finance