I too sent out a written complaint to 3 e-mail addresses of hopefully relevant regulators:
<complianceanddisclosure@tsxventure.ca>; <surveillancewest@iiroc.ca>;<mani.sanghera@tsxventure.com>;
That the proposed financing be subject to shareholder approval.
That only the votes of those shareholders actually voting are taken into account. This means that non-voting shareholders are not deemed to have voted in favour of the financing as happened at the last AGM with the then proposed private placement (which did not proceed).
That any party with a direct or indirect shareholding in Monument and participating in the financing is disenfranchised from voting on the proposed financing. This means that Goldmet and/or its shareholders and directors if participating in the financing cannot exercise their votes. The same applies to Orefin, if still a shareholder, and Monument’s management, directors, their associates and related parties should they be participants in the proposed financing.
That the promised 43-101 report has not been disclosed for the Selinsing gold mine in spite of statements by Monument’s President and CEO that this report would be disclosed before 2012 year end. The shareholders are therefore in the dark as to the economic value of this gold deposit. It should be noted that the company stated (in its Petition to the BC Supreme Court seeking a deferment of its AGM date from December, 2012, to March, 2013), Part 2, item 4 (quote) ‘Monument has an operating mine in Malaysia named Selinsing. Selinsing is the source of Monument’s revenue and earnings (Monument reported US$59 million earnings in its 2012 fiscal year). Monument is in the course of expanding Selinsing significantly, an effort that will require the investment of substantial capital’ (end of quote). This planned expansion has not been disclosed to shareholders and this expansion can only be justified if Selinsing’s gold resources/reserves have increased. This has also not been disclosed to shareholders pending the disclosure of the promised 43-101 report.
That the Mengapur property does not require a substantial capital investment. A proposed drill programme at a cost of $13.2 million can easily be financed by Monument. This programme will be required to produce a 43-101 report at the end of this year and a financing will be therefore not be necessary until then.
That the proposed $80 million financing harms the financial interest of the present shareholders because it is very dilutive to their interest and that the financing may give control of Monument to associated or related parties of GoldMet, Orefin and/or the directors. Again, change of control should be subject to shareholder approval.
That Monument made a $5 million loan to Veris Gold, companies with four common directors, thereby indicating that Monument has funds in excess of its own requirements and thus not in need to raise funds.
Thus no PP should take place:
Until after the General Meeting now postponed to March '13
The 43-101 report on Selinsing has been completed
Until full disclosure is made concerning expansion of Selinsing from approx 4- - 50 kOz of gold to 80 - 100 koz per annum
Timeline and cost of this expansion already well along the way as we were told
Return of 5M $ lent to Veris Gold, now overdue
Disclosure of status of Mengapur, including updating 43 101
Timeline and approx financial requirements on Mengapur from 43 101 to piloting and conceptual mining and milling facilities including eventual up-scaling
Full disclosure and justification ofr the urgency of a 80 M $ PP facility at this time when there is money in the bank and some 14 M$ added every quarter.
Why is there a plan of a 80 M $ PP before the facts are known and communicated to the shareholders?
Furthermore:
That the proposed financing be subject to shareholder approval.
That only the votes of those shareholders actually voting are taken into account. This means that non-voting shareholders are not deemed to have voted in favour of the financing as happened at the last AGM with the then proposed private placement (which did not proceed).
That any party with a direct or indirect shareholding in Monument and participating in the financing is disenfranchised from voting on the proposed financing. This means that Goldmet and/or its shareholders and directors if participating in the financing cannot exercise their votes. The same applies to Orefin, if still a shareholder, and Monument’s management, directors, their associates and related parties should they be participants in the proposed financing.
I trust you will consider this information when making a decision if this planned PP is within the regulation of the authrorities and in the best interest of the shareholders.
Wolf Engel, B Tech
I hope thios will help. I did use some of the info provided by industrious share holders of MMY from posts here on Stockhouse. Hope you don't mind but if it helps we are all better off for it.