Tibby asked an interesting question on IHub. “
Why would you need to renew an option that had no clear basis of existing” [?]
That’s one of the underlying issues of this entire situation. Given the lack of public disclosure, it is doubtful that any formal extension was ever signed even though MSX continued to make sporadic “option payments”.
MSX announced in a July 30, 2015 news release:
“The Property Option Agreement by mutual agreement of the parties remains valid and binding upon both parties, despite the existence of mutually acknowledged option payment arrears at this time, which parties agree, to be directly related to and the product of Mountainstar’s loss of its stock exchange trading status.”
https://www.sedar.com/GetFile.do?lang=EN&docClass=8&issuerNo=00009237&issuerType=03&projectNo=02377611&docId=3775544 At this point, almost 2 years before the Affidavit was written and 2 ½ years before Ossa testified, the lack of performance on MSX’s part is blamed on the BCSC’s cease trade orders.
Possibly one of the reasons that a renewal of the option agreement was never formalized was, that by the time of the above news release, all of the mining claims that were contained in the Option Agreement had been cancelled and their rights expired. By signing a formal option agreement at that point, JL would have been committing prima facie fraud as the properties he was optioning no longer belonged to him.
In JL’s lawsuit (C 1036-2021) against Ossa and Claro & Co., he states:
“The defendant Felipe Ossa, by asserting false facts in his affidavit and then testifying before the BCSC, caused Mr. Brent Johnson and the company of which he held the position of Executive Chairman, MSX, to be convicted. MSX had a contractual agreement with my client, which was reported in the statement of events of the present lawsuit. As a result of the culpable action of the defendant, Felipe Ossa, for the insults uttered, the commercial relationship between MSX and my client ended,
which was the sole reason for such an outcome. If he had not falsified his statement, MSX would not have been condemned and thus, the contractual link with my representative would remain in force.”
So, it can be proven (1) that there was no
contractual agreement between JL and MSX, but merely a “mutual agreement”; (2) that even if the mutual agreement were acknowledged, JL could not perform because he no longer owned the mining claims that he optioned; (3) that MSX had not performed in accordance with such an agreement for more than two years before the BCSC hearing; and (4) that the BCSC was blamed for MSX’s non-performance as of July 2015 despite the subsequent assertion in the lawsuit that Ossa’s “false statements” were
the sole reason that the option agreement was no longer in force.