Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Eco Oro Minerals Corp C.EOM

Alternate Symbol(s):  GYSLF

Eco Oro Minerals Corp. is a Canadian precious metals exploration and development company. The Company was focused on the development of the Angostura Project in northeastern Colombia, which consists of the main Angostura deposit and its five satellite prospects. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Arbitration Claim became the core focus of the Company.


CSE:EOM - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by oldtimer42on Mar 03, 2017 9:22am
236 Views
Post# 25925538

RE:3 Weeks To Get As Many Votes As Possible

RE:3 Weeks To Get As Many Votes As PossibleI think there may be more to it that that. They are between a rock and a hard place with the two investor initiatives. It is my impression the board may be trying to get this pig to market before the "Petition" is decided by judge. I would expect them to try to delay the petition hearing.

In that hearing, the lies put forward by Anna will be debunked. Particularly her statements that: no one would loan us money; and, we had no choice but to go with Tenor, no one else would take it on. Right now it is just her word against others. However, proof would probably be presented at the hearing that her statements were not truthful. That information would be relevant prior to a vote.

One last point, the "participants" were prohibited from voting on the second tranche due to their direct interest in those proceedings. What is different now? They are still the direct beneficiaries of board mismanagement, the "requisition" team should explore having them excluded from voting due to their direct interest in the outcome. We all know the CVR is just a pig by a different colour.
Bullboard Posts