RE: RE: Teuton's December 31, 2011 Financial State Nice try. There are several important distinctions between the warnings by AMK and those of Teuton in their financials.
One, the so-called "burn rate" of capital is ridiculously low with Teuton, while the history of management compensation at AMK has been very, very high. And their "expenses" have also been very high.
Two, Teuton's properties not only include 49 percent (worst case) of Treaty (more likely 100 percent, but also the High property located less than a mile from Pretium's Bridge Zone. Very limited work was done there last year.
Other properties include the Clone, Yellow Chris and a host of others encompassing about 300,000 acres in the Golden Triangle.
AMK's shareholders have seen their management misplace* drilling records (to be kind), delay delivery of requested helicopter flight records to Teuton (14 months of waiting); have regulatory issues with government regulators; seen management make "red flag-raising" trades for their own accounts seemingly placing their interests before those of shareholders; having a handful of management draw a cumulative $450,000 (est.) a year in compensation and "pro-AMK posters," seemingly almost gleeful about the stock price collapsing and massive dilution continue to misrepresent the true state of affairs with regard to litigation, IMO, such as virtually "guaranteeing" a summary trial, knowing full well that those proceedings are not applicable to this case, although a motion can be made for one because all it takes is a computer and a few sheets of paper.
And after damaging Teuton (That's right; Teuton) with representations like the above, as well as utilizing other delaying tactics, as the clock is running toward "High Noon" for a full-blown trial, a very unorthodox, public "proposal" is issued by management offerring to "settle" by having "independent auditors" report their findings after further study -- in my opinion an obvious attempt to, a, portray AMK as victims who are trying to be "reasonable" by offering to settle the case; at the same time removing the case from the trial docket where management of AMK would be subject to cross-examination on their accounting backup documents and other practices, which is no problem for someone telling the truth but a huge problem if (and I'm not accusing anyone of wrongdoing here) -- a huge problem if AMK's story is false, as alleged by Dino Cremonese. In fact, some of the allegations are so serious that I think I understand why AMK wanted this case out of the judicial system.
As far as all their news releases that portray Teuton as the villains in the piece, it's transparent to me that those releases, along with the half-truths of some posters on this bullboard, are simply stalling for time.
And that brings me to my last point. Here's my question: Based on all of the foregoing, which company would have more trouble raising money. Bear in mind that Teuton might very well be getting a nice chunk of change from their HDI-Tennyson deal, but if more money is required to keep Teuton in the game, it will be an easy money raise because its investors know that a private placement might -- oddly enough -- help the TUO share price; while any capital raise by AMK would require the issuance of tens of millions of shares, based on the very low sp currently extant; but, more importantly, would require potential investors in future pps to give current management a vote of confidence with their hard-earned cash and eventually the truth of Abraham Lincoln's famous statement will ring a bell with even the most die-hard AMK supporter: "You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool some of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." How many times can AMK go to the well of shareholders who have seen their investment collapse down to .055?
A "fake"
Lastly, don't show us the motion papers asking for a summary trial. Show us the decision of the judge in the case ordering a summary trial. My experience as a court reporter of over 40 years tells me that it is very unlikely to be granted because it is clear that that proceeding does not apply in this controversy. Read the second paragraph here https://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/family-justice/options/supreme-court/summary_trial.htm
Clearly a "swing and a miss" once again.
Assume arguendo that AMK management knew they had come up short; the right move would have been to go to Dino in early 2010 and fess up; ask to renegotiate and offer concessions like taking a smaller percentage of the property and allow work to go forward under the Teuton flag. But that was not to be.
Now I believe this case will go to trial. If AMK has misrepresented the actions of Teuton with news releases that are untrue (and I'm not taking a position on that), then human nature tells me that Dino Cremonese has been backed into a corner and while he might have settled had his character not been impugned (which I assume is his interpretation), I think it's now a question of honor for him to "clear his name" if unjustified claims have been made by AMK. Of course, if AMK is in the right, they will win. I just give Dino more credibility than AMK's management.
So Dino requested an adjournment to obtain new counsel. Big deal. That is standard. As a court reporter, I observed hundreds of requests for adjournment to obtain new counsel, always granted by the court. The exception was when someone changed attorneys multiple times to delay a case from going to trial.
Did AMK delay here? I don't know. But Teuton says it waited 14 months for the helicopter records! That is consistent with delay. So now, Messrs. Burton and Blaney, you will have your long-awaited day in court. You will be answering questions from a well-prepared plaintiff with a Queen's Counsel at the helm and, I expect, expert testimony and perhaps even disinterested witnesses who will tell their version of events. I assume a forensic accountant has looked over what records have been provided and may testify, if required.
Again, these are all my opinions. If I'm wrong, it will be a simple matter to prove the AMK case! I look forward to such a trial, even if I, as a loyal shareholder of Teuton, may be called upon to help "my" company by purchasing some shares in a pp. The one thing we Teuton shareholders know is that money provided to Teuton will be well spent and targeted.
Saldo, never have I seen you post something to the effect that you were losing money in American Creek stock. Why is that? Are you just "lucky" enough to have flipped in and out of this stock at the right moment? Did you sell higher priced shares and buy back the cheaper private placement shares? Inquiring minds want to know. Or are you just a "creative writer" who has $500 worth of this company who likes to hear herself "talk"? Well, it doesn't really matter to me because not only is your opinion worthless; you don't fool too many people with your posts because most shareholders are sitting with huge paper losses and you happily continue to post "happy talk" on a company whose prospects resemble the post-iceberg strike of the Titanic, I'm sorry to say.
All of the above is my opinion. Do your own DD. I am a shareholder of Teuton Resources and proud of it.
RR