Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc. V.LME

Clarifying question

[Twiggie]

Someone made a comment earlier this week and it seems to have been unanswered or purposely dodged. I have the same question. If a buyout was close would the share price not be skyrocketing? I understand (as did the previous post author) that friends and family make up and huge portion of the stock. If a buyout was close, someone would be saying something to someone, on both sides of the deal....including the buyer side. Wouldn't people be snaching up stock left, right and centre? This would drive the price up. The opposite is happening, the price is going down. This leads me to believe a buyer is not at the table. I'm totally not the most knowledgeable or articulate person on this forum and I would like to hear the thoughts of the masses. Steve included.

[matlas]

I gave you my theory guy.  if you don't want to buy it, that is your call.

[Twiggie]

And I value and look to your posts on this forum the most in all honesty. It was a comment made by someone else that I could not ignore and has stuck in my mind all week. I couldn't believe no one wanted to touch the comment at that time. 

[matlas]

Thanks for your flattering words.  As you will see, I did comment at the time.   

[matlas]

BTW Twiggie- Talking about "leaks", what do you think about the fact that the largest or second largest shareholder of LME, who is married to the CEO write on his FB page, after the announcement about the USCG deal: "BIG LAURION NEWS out this morning, from Cynthia's desk. This is the important move that LME shareholders have been waiting for. We can now expect some BIG BIG

[KaBams]

You could take a view, if Roger is Legally allowed to say that and I am sure that stmt was vetted. He could not be referring to his knowledge that a sale is forthcoming or other insider information. To me that stmt seems far far across the line and probably only gets away with as he has a history of many years of saying such stuff that a person should not take him seriously.

[matlas]

Roger is neither an officer not Director, and I am not aware of anything that precludes him from saying what he wants. I believe that there are legal restrictions on trading based on insider info; however, I am not aware of anything that precludes the sharing of inside info per se by someone who is not a Officer or Director. I do not know what that could mean other than a BO, and I do not think

[KaBams]

It matters not if a person is related to the company. The punishment goes up hill also. The person who gave him the information is responsible for the behaviour of the person.

[matlas]

Without commenting on the accuracy of what you are stating within this context, what are you saying? The only reason why he is making that statement is because it is assumed that nobody will take it seriously as being valid? Hard to imagine that is the case.

[KaBams]

Matlas if I was his lawyer I would tell him to shut ---- up.

[matlas]

Maybe so, but that would suggest that you think that there is some trust in what he has written.

[matlas]

I meant "trust", not "trust"

[matlas]

Sorry, "truth"

[StevenHunter]

Hello all! I'm trying to find the question that's being asked and I'm not sure that I'm tracking it.  Is it a concern that there aren't leaks of information from Laurion's leadership?  That's a good thing in my view. Let me know if I'm missing something. Be well everyone and enjoy the long weekend! -Steve

[KaBams]

Someone made a comment quoting Roger as saying "big big news is coming" inferring he is implying Roger is talking about sale. To which I pointed out this could not be what he means as if it were I doubt it would be legal for him to state it. I am further not happy if in fact he did use those words, as he should know people on this site and other misinterpret it as him saying sale is at

[matlas]

Chill out guy, I did not mean for you to get so worked-up and upset. I just start out with two basic premises: 1) I cannot imagine what "BIG BIG anouncement" would be other than of a BO. If you can think of something other than that which would make sense, let me know what that is, and 2) Regardless of whether Roger should be posting such stuff or not, which is not my concern, I do

[keen2know]

He is very close to the line.  I do not understand why he feels the need to say anything at all. If everything is supposedly moving along behind the scenes, there is no benefit of him saying anything. It would be only bad that can come from it surely?  Unless he is just trying to push the share price higher...

[StevenHunter]

I get the question now.... Roger has posted alot of messages over the years that I've owned LME.  He's clearly a positive supporter of the company for a very long list of reasons.  He's a massive shareholder and he's a devout supporter of his Wife and her achievements.   He doesn't have any more information on any M&A activities than I do, which is

[keen2know]

Appreciate the information but I also know you would have to say that.  There can't be many people on here that would believe Roger doesn't know exactly what's going on? As Kabams has said, the feedback should be for Roger to sit on his hands and say nothing. Personally I don't see any good coming from him posting at this stage. I may be wrong? 

[matlas]

Right keen2know-I believe that even if Roger does not know "exactly what is going on", he knows enough for him to make the statement that he did, or else he would not have done it. Using two "BIGs" shows a lot of confidence! Also, I don't know about you, but when I put 2 and 2 together, I always get 4, not 5. Enjoy the rest of your long weekend everyone.

[KaBams]

I say that small companies need promoters and such, and if not for  them I would ever have found out about Lme. As I am sure you are aware that fact Roger does or does know is irrelevant given his relationship to ceo, size of ownership in company. Rules like would it be reasonable for a lay person to believe he means sale of company. So a senior like you says " he does not know and

[matlas]

I don't see any possibility that Roger is intentionally misleading us. If he is releasing info that maybe he should not be, for one reason or another, I do not see why you think that is any kind of problem for us. That is between him and the regulators, if applicable, not us. I am happy to get all the info that I can.

[KaBams]

Well Matlas at the end of all this you feel cheated and other based these stmts made. You may feel he did it for his benefit and your loss. Others may agree and join you.

[Twiggie]

Steve, my initial question/ comment had nothing to do with rogers posts. My comment was....and I'll rephrase... I do not believe there is a buyer at the table because if there was their friends and family woild be buying up like crazy with whispers from their side. But with the volume so low, it leads me to believe that there is no buyer. Everyone seems to want to change the subject.  I

[Bracko]

I agree it's not Right for him to say these words maybe he says theses things so we don't sell and the share price might drop even more.  Was he on some kind of committee for the tsx for stuff like this ????

[matlas]

I think it is time for me to take a break from this forum again-too much silliness and negativity. Will be back when BO announced,

[KaBams]

Matlas I for one enjoy your posts. I was not directing anything at you. I believe your post here Roger's "big big news" was something that you should have been made known here. TY my issue with Roger's stmt. there is no good side to it. Steve claiming he does not really know gives him cover to make such stmts does not hold either. please keep posting!!! It is what keel

[fatlas]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.  I believe it is NOT illegal to have insider (material, non-disclosed) information. It IS illegal to trade on it.  It is NOT illegal to pass on insider (material, non-disclosed) information - BUT if that person you told trades on it they can be found guilty of insider trading and you can be found guilty of tipping.  A different offence - but still

[JoJoHairBlo]

...unless you are a sitting member of the US Congress.  Then all of the above rules do not apply.

[KaBams]

It would not be illegal insider trading merely to trade on the information a person overhears, especially information in a public setting. For example, people may overhear information about a company standing in line at Starbucks. If the material non-public information is overheard in a private setting and then used to make trades, the legal risk might be quite different.   so say

[fatlas]

Like I said KaBams - I'm no lawyer - but I don't think there is anything in the rules about how you one comes to have the information. If you're trading on inside information I think you run the risk of getting caught and it being a problem. Of course like any law you have to get caught and then charged and then found guilty.   If YOU are trading on undisclosed information I

[KaBams]

I am no lawyer either I have some senior consulting experience. But I am cutting pasting legal passages found on web. it depend on how you get the information. If meet bob the code of big gold corp at the bar by chance and he start blabbing to me about insider information. I  can buy it and  not be guilty of anything. It would be him that committed the crime. If knew bob was a drunk

[Lambosntendies]

This whole post thread is garbage. This is the kinda stuff you find on Reddit, everyone here deserves better. Roger is the ceos husband and second largest shareholder. Of course he will be optimistic and promote the company. Are his statements misleading? Only if he is making those positive statements KNOWING that there is nothing going on behind the scenes. But he wouldn't be privy to m&

[KaBams]

For sure it was not my intention to impugn Roger. I don't believe he made the stmt with malice or bad intentions. I am invested because I trust the Lme team, and do believe pumpers are needed. My part in this thread started when I was trying to correct someone with what his comment s meant. Later Steve  agreed and confirmed it did not mean sale was coming. at that time I point out maybe

[Wmaver]

To be fair, Steve never confirmed a sale was or was not coming. He said He and Roger, and anyone not sitting directly at the table knows if a sale is or is not coming. There is a big difference in saying there is no sale, and he doesn't know anything about a sale and will never know before we all know on release day.

[Wmaver]

And to further we ALL on here assume a sale is coming.  Lol that is why we bought in..... So it is safe to say a sale is coming..... is it tomorrow? 10 years? Again we don't know.  The FAQ mentions there has already been interest directed at the board at higher than 43c.  So there are already buyers who have reached out. So yes there is a sale coming..... it has been written

[KaBams]

Lol all I said was that stmt  could not be that Roger was inferring sale. Steve said from a different angle but same conclusion he was saying could not know and therefore not inferring sale was coming. My goal was to stop other people from repeating and mis using this stmt to infer he is announcing sale is forthcoming 

[ilovexau]

I believe, coming full circle on this, the question was.... Why no price increase if a buyout was imminent... Looking at other buyout announcements and they stay relatively stable prior. Use GBR as an example, it was in a modest down trend to November where there was a bump in price of 30% from Nov to Jan. Then there was an actual announcement and over night the stock "gapped up" to the