RE:RE:RE:Boris EmailTG, first let me say that I hope that Stans does somehow emerge successfully and allows shareholders the opportunity to hold or leave. As I have said in the past, I sold my holding for a small loss some time ago. Yet, I remain an interested bystander who has long been involved in precious/critical metals speculation. I wish present Stans holders the very best.
However, as to things Stans has to offer, remember if they have just a piece of paper with a ‘relationship’ or a claim to tech’ knowledge, then they can claim having such partnerships or knowledge. Unfortunately, it does not mean such claims are worth any more than the paper on which they are written (e.g., remember the 2010-11 REE bust when many of these companies showed themselves to be 'Kings without clothing'). Note also e.g., how easily documented LOI and MOU are often just nullified by companies with far more standing presently than Stans.
IMHO, Putin/Russia is not going to allow a basically bankrupt Canadian micro-cap company that has done nothing actionable in the last half decade other than a court case, anywhere near one of its ‘valid’ critical metals’ projects. Arbitration? Not going to happen again for Stans on anyhting presently claimed.
Further Stans’ claims to have prop’ tech’ on REE 1. mining; 2 extracting and 3. processing? Please realize how long and how much money it took for Lynas to gather its prop’ tech’ in all these 3 values stages – one decade plus millions $? Look at how much time and money other REEs (e.g., Ucore, Medallion, etc.) are spending on developing these types of tech’ knowledge. If Stans had anything near worthwhile in this area it would long since have been bought out. Also, remember Stans long ago acknowledged and ‘wrote off’ all the asset value of it REE facilities.
As to the CTO this has nothing to do with any intent the company may or may not have to emerge from the trading halt. I believe the CTO occurred after the trading halt was already in place and related to follow up issues re., Stans documentation. The CTO issues simply need to be addressed to enable Stans to either trade, or stay in the halt; so, they have to be addressed - period. I don’t see Stans' misleading on this issue as it serves no purpose.
As to future announcements that will impact the company, these are the typical reasons for companies asking for trading halts. Stans can claim they are working with ‘others’ in future company impacting moves. Perfectly legal, unfortunately, they can go on for months/years without the need for documentation to the market.
In fact, as I suggested probably the only value Stans has maybe to another entity in a reverse merger, which allows the entity to gain access to the trading market under Stans name initially. Precious/critical metals markets are presently advancing so this move might be a possibility. But, we would liklely see the removal of most (or all) the Stans managment and potential some real dilution to original share holders.
Finally, on the point about the term ‘illegal’. I should admit that often something is only illegal in busines if it is proven so in court; prior to this it is just ‘alleged’ illegality. Many small caps thrive on this because they know that most shareholders would lose their shirts financially in trying to pursue via the court. Lawyers’ hourly rates here rather than commissions, as these companies often have very little in terms of assets; Stans would be a perfect example. So, a company overly worried about shareholders concerns re., illegalities – not really.
GLTA -
https://twitter.com/EarthsRare