RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:From IRctblizzard wrote: Copied this from my post elsewhere regarding the 90 days confusion between Todd and Cory...
TODD OSETH
"Todd Oseth, President and CEO So, sure. So what ends up happening is that there was a concession agreement that was made between the project company and the government earlier this year. And in November we received our contract for what activities we would perform. As we've said many times before, we are the sole contractor in this effort. And what ends up happening is that from the information that was delivered in November, the government had to submit a certain amount of information which did not end up hitting the project company until February. The 90-day component did not start until sometime in February.
Again, our -- we don't have that contract, so we're in a -- we basically, all we know is the month. So it started in February, the 90-day period. So we're not in a problem in any of the covenants of the original concession agreement at this time. Then once the project financing starts, the first payment is our down payment and then there are monthly milestones that are met for the next three years. Did I answer your question?"
Shareholders Email response from Cory
Q: Regarding the 90 day contract window - Is it 90 calendar days or 90 business days?
A: Intermap does not have a 90 day stipulation in its contract with the client. The 90 days was picked up off of the internet by certain individuals who may or may not be investors in IMP. We’ve commented previously that no-one should 100% trust that the requisite information is provided on the internet. Suffice it to say that the activity between our client, their funding partner(s), and the government continues in earnest with a goal to close the project financing as rapidly as possible