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.

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
Post by SchiffKnowsBeston Aug 05, 2017 1:00pm
143 Views
Post# 26551016

Here's My Complaint I Sent To The OSC And BCSC

Here's My Complaint I Sent To The OSC And BCSCI think this is the only true area we can attack.  I hope everyone outside the gang of thirteen will send something similar and let our voices be heard. 


I just sent this to the OSC and BCSC.
 
-Is the recent compromise between concerned shareholders, dissidents, and the company in violation of MI 61-101?

-The company is claiming that everyone will be allowed to vote on the proposed transaction when the main benefactors (owning approx 46% of the company) has not changed within the revised deal.  They appear to only be offering minority shareholders 19.45% of the CVR to then allow the CVR participants to vote on the proposed transaction as the transaction would likely be in jeopardy if they were not allowed to vote.

-Also, I question how a deal was struck with 13 shareholders to coincidentally equal 66% representing the 2/3 majority required to pass the transaction.

-My wish is that the minority shareholders are the only ones allowed to vote on this proposal as it is in the public interest to ensure that all parties are treated fairly in special transactions such as this.

Thanks for your consideration.
Bullboard Posts