Desert Mountain Energy Corp V.DME

How is this possible with leases!

[Darkangel]

You would think that's the first major step , making sure regarding the leases , and why did it take until now to come out , thats really bad guys.! Someone needs to be let go !

[ark88]

The fact is, as if all the obvious issues raised weren't bad enough they have the stupidity to bury the news at the bottom of another news. Trust, transparency, accountability....yikes! Blew it all up with just one post.

[Buyhigheatchips]

Dude chill. The explanation was in the NR. They did their DD on the lease. The previous leaseholder didn't follow through on the lease requirements. Now they're seeing $$$ and so they're making a play. Like a long lost relative after you win the lottery.  DM was very clear to me. "The leases are ours."   

[Buyhigheatchips]

Seen in this light it is actually a validation of the value we hold here.  Chin up.

[Fredo51545]

Perhaps, but the third party could request an injunction pending negotiation/litigation? Also, the PP is dead until the issue is resolved?

[Buyhigheatchips]

Perhaps. The legal possibilities are out of my wheelhouse. An injunction though is supposed to based on merit and credible possibility of immediate harm. This party waited years and now claims immediate harm? As for the PP I guess it depends on the relationship the company has with the investors. As long as we have enough money to get to production I'm ok if it's delayed. Yes this might

[TiredofWating]

If "the leases are ours," then I would have expected managment not to have buried this news at the end of an otherwise positive release and to have been more assertive in that claim to reassure investors. Maybe this is just the previous leaseholder trying to gain advantage of the work that DME has done on the property.   If so, then DME should aggressively pursue a resolution.