|
HOPEFULLY MONUMENT WILL WIN THIS BATTLE.
A REPORT POSTED BY STOCKHOUSE FOR YOUR INFO.
A long-running dispute over a gold mine in Malaysia continues to dog Monument Mining Ltd. (TSX: V.MMY, Stock Forum), shifting the company’s focus from mining operations to a $50 million defamation suit that is under way in a Vancouver courtroom.
Monument representatives appeared before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Goepel in Vancouver this week, seeking damages for alleged defamation in a case that centres on the junior’s flagship Selinsing mine, which produced 44,438 ounces gold last year, generating $56.6 million in revenue.
The defendants in the case are Sim Tze Chui, her Australian husband Kenneth John Baker and the couple’s Malaysian law firm Balendran Chong & Bodi.
The dispute was triggered in August 2007 when Chui and Baker wrote a letter containing allegations that senior Monument officials, including the company’s Chief Executive Officer Robert Baldock, were themselves defendants in allegedly unresolved litigation relating to ownership of the mine.
Ms. Sim asserted in the letter that she was the controlling shareholder of Asian Mining Services, a company which allegedly held all of the shares of Selinsing Mining Sdn., the owner of the Selinsing gold mine.
Sim’s alleged control position, she said, was held through 999 of the 1,000 issued ordinary shares of Asian Mining, according to court documents obtained by Stockhouse. Sim went on to say in the letter that part of the property was subject to a court injunction that had not been resolved.
When Belandran Chong distributed these allegations to Monument’s Vancouver underwriter Haywood Securities Inc. and others in August 2007, it was an event that “changed the dynamics of the company,” said Monument spokesman Richard Cushing, during an interview with Stockhouse.
After trading at $1.39 in July 2007, the stock tumbled to 50 cents by January 2008, a move that put severe pressure on the company during a period when it was buying equipment as it prepared for the development of an open pit mine at the site.
“We had to finance the mine at that price,’’ Cushing said. Haywood reacted by placing Monument on its “grey list” for five months. During that period, the investment firm’s internal compliance department was on heightened alert, watching for any trading activity by company insiders who were privy to material information that had not been disclosed to the public.
Having failed to regain its former heights, Monument was trading at 46 cents this week, giving the company a market cap of $85 million, based on 184 million shares outstanding. The 52-week range for the stock is 72 cents and 38 cents.
At current levels, the Monument Mining has been a poor investment for anyone who paid over 70 cents for the stock in February, 2011.
Existing shareholders face potential dilution as the company works to complete a $70 million private placement offering of 140 million units priced at 50 cents each, after securing exchange acceptance for the acquisition of a 70% stake in a polymetallic project in central Malaysia.
During this week’s defamation trial, the court heard that Chui and Baker sent a total of 16 letters to recipients, including directors of Monument, the TSX Venture Exchange and the company’s Vancouver solicitor DuMoulin Black LLP.
When Monument responded in July 2008, by filing a writ of summons in the B.C. Supreme Court, and naming Sim, Baker and Balendran Chong as defendants, it alleged that the letters were falsely and maliciously defamatory.
“Monument had at no time acted fraudulently for failing to disclose the true ownership, as alleged or at all, of the Selinsing Gold Mine,’’ the company said its writ of summons. “Nonetheless, the defendants published the fact that Monument had done so in the complete absence of any proof or verification, without any reasonable investigation of the correctness of the assertion and knowing full well that the assertion was false.’’
Monument went on to say in the writ that the August, 2007 letter from Ms. Sim and her husband constituted a “slander of title.” The company insisted that it is the true owner of the mine.
While cross examining Balendran Chong lawyer Vignesh Kumar Krishnasamy this week, Alistair Wade, the lawyer acting for Monument, said the letter had failed to mention that Baldock was actually the former liquidator for Asian Mining. He also attempted to cast doubt on Sim’s ownership claim, pointing out that Asian Mining had 50,000 shares outstanding in June 2003, according to publicly available information in Malaysia.
“Wouldn’t a reader be misled by paragraph three of the letter?’’ Wade asked.
He was referring to Balendran’s assertion that its client Ms. Sim owns 999 shares (“Controlling shares”) of the 1,000 issued ordinary shares (“original issued capital”) of Asian Mining Services (AMS).
“Maybe yes, maybe not,’’ Kumar replied.
Wade went on to ask if it was not misleading to say in the August 2007 letter that Baldock had no authority to deal with ownership or title of Selinsing Gold mine, Selinsing, or AMS, when he was in fact a court-appointed liquidator.
Company spokesman Richard Cushing said he has no idea what the outcome of the trial will be. However, a lawyer who is familiar with the case said that in his view, it’s highly doubtful that Monument will be awarded anywhere near $50 million in damages, even if the company wins the case.
|