Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Right here. I luv this company.
the day is saved, with your posting !
Right here. I luv this company.
Banro doing good things for LONG n STRONG,
Can’t lose if you don’t sell.
I know the company sold for me...
but I support strong mngt.
The ‘Courts Mine’ is their latest discovery and this one is winner;
massive reserves, massive output, massive payout.
Dividend will be as big as my president’s tie.
And ‘can rely on the other.’ Yeah, good point.
For instance, Banro can simply claim that it let him go because both defendants separately had become under legal attack, and separating the two from attachment to each other makes best legal and tactical sense. That’s all. No guilt is admitted.
agree ,thus, one can rely on the other.
That makes the game more difficult. This is also the tactic of every company that gets into trouble. This is also played in politics.
good consideration
Of course, it’s to be continued...
Banro letting Clarke go, as a matter of law, is not an admission of guilt. Nor is or would it be an admission of guilt in Clarke’s attorneys attempting or succeeding to prevent his testimony. You don’t know what you’re talking about. For instance, Banro can simply claim that it let him go because both defendants separately had become under legal attack, and separating the two from attachment to each other makes best legal and tactical sense. That’s all. No guilt is admitted.
As to Trunkmonk, yes, if Court sets an order, Clarke will have to follow it. Though even then, Clarke may not follow it, if he and his attorneys deem it better for him that he disobey the Court’s order, and accept any subsequent repercussions.
Further, the Court does not just conclude things, as you suggest. One of the two parties must raise or motion an issue for the Court to consider. Legard will have to prove Banro's guilt you claim is evident. The evidence you claim of dismissal and prevention of testimony as a determination of guilt can simply be established as appropriate legal protection of each party, Banro and Clarke.
Like trunkmonk said, he will have no choice.
Since the lawsuit has been submitted, the optimism has looked higher. That is partly due to banros reactions. Letting Clarke go immediately is an admission of guilt. One doesn't need to be legally trained to know this. And if Clarke's lawyers try to detain him from court, that will also show admission of guilt.
It just keeps looking worse for banro. I didn't expect this much good news the last 3 months since the suite was filed. History has also showed canadian corporations who have committed stock fraud in the US to be found guilty in US courts multiple times in the past. Research it.
To be continued........
Answer: Yes. Disassociate/Disconnect him from company for legal reasons.
Protects the company. Likely protects Clarke too. Clarke cannot not answer for Banro as he is no longer a party to the defendant Banro. Clarke is a separately named defendant. Get it?
Not sure if Clarke can be subpoenaed and deposed as a non-party witness to incidents regarding Banro (considering he is also a separately named defendant), but as a separate defendant I image his attorneys will do what they can to prevent him as a witness to himself.
The court, if required, will have him in the seat if they want, no matter what his lot is at that time.
Smart legally tactical move by banro? To cut him loose immediately after he was served? The US court can read this very easily. Too easily
No, his release had nothing to do with the restructuring.
I see, interesting point. I did not know Clarke is no longer CEO of Banro. In fact, just went to Banro’s website again, and it’s now completely gone, removed, just the domain name loads to a “website coming soon” page.
Is there a news or announcement regarding the resignation/removal/replacement of John Clarke?
Did find this news item of appointment of Brett Richards as Chairman and CEO of Banro on May 7, 2018 (not a peep about Clarke):
https://worldnews.se/business/2018/05/07/banro-corp-appoints-new-chairman-and-chief-executive-officer/
and
I found this profile on Clarke from Bloomberg (Clarke is listed as CEO of Banro until May 7, 2018):
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=2787787&privcapId=876706
When you previously said Clarke was removed the day after being served I took this to mean as removed as a named defendant in Legard’s suit (which I did not understand), yet did you mean rather as CEO of Banro? Or both? Yet likely, I suppose Clarke continues to be named as a defendant.
As to Banro’s ‘reaction’ in replacing Clarke after being served, seems 1.) a smart legally tactical move, and 2.) Banro likely heldoff serving Clarke until a Chairman/CEO replacement was found (it also may have been plan anyway to have Clarke move-on after the Canadian Court’s ReOrganization certification).
Brett A. Richards seems a roaming ‘fix-it’ executive for the mining industry.
It's like in politics. They are replaced in good time before lynching.
Amen
Hey stock it out, I agree with most of what you're saying. Except Banros reactions not being relevant. Alot of it has been. Especially the fact that Clark was removed from CEO the very next day after he was served. Would he still be CEO if he wasn't served or if there wasn't a lawsuit?
Thanks X 2
I agree with you. The case is interesting.
And you did a good job on the board. Long enough.
I also believe that it is not worthless to talk about it. Because we can learn from each other.
And these observations about the development of Banro are a warning to me.
You wrote an excellent answer on the board for me. I can only agree.
Thanks for the answer and good weekend
..._ UP
That's your opinion
That's my answer.
Yes, that's my opinion. I always write my opinion.
Your questions have already been answered by SIO. I could not do it better.
StockItOut Friday, 05/25/18 03:59:58 PM
Re: Elevation post# 63600 0
Post #
63604
of 63605
Answers to: “That's you opinion. To that, there are the following questions.”
...........................................
As always, he's stuck to facts, that's why
I like his answer very much.
You’re too personally involved and invested, and not legally trained, to understand the legal framework, rationale, and legal actions of Banro. Evidence itself is not a statement, and Banro’s ‘reaction’ to a lawsuit is opinion of little to no relevance. Banro working against shareholders is the suit.
Answers to: “That's you opinion. To that, there are the following questions.”
Why are multiple law firms going after Banro? They wouldn't waste time on a case they couldn't win.
Attorney firms see opportunity to win a settlement to, at minimum, cover their billed attorney fees and get paid.
Also: what/who the hell are these firms? Why do you keep playing cat and mouse with basic information? Complaint filings are public information, yet you act like only you and a few have access and are in-the-know. Seems silly games to me.
Why is banro so desperate to keep this in Canada?
Wouldn’t you and your attorneys do the same? Mainly because there is no legal issue in Canada. The crooked Canadian judge and court system handed everything to Banro as Banro wanted. Banro’s actions would not, and do not, relay desperation.
What ramifications did Banro cause by blocking aid in a foreign court?
Blocking aid? Are you even framing the question and idea correctly?
What has Banro blocked? Do you mean with regard to financing for Banro’s ReOrganization/Recapitalization? Or do you reference Banro’s claim the suit has no merit in the United States, as you have claimed Banro has stated? If the latter, this is simply their claimed legal perspective, and defense.
Why did Banro defense refuse to serve John Clarke and why did this not sit well with US courts?
It’s fairly obvious, they did not want to serve Mr. Clarke, or to get him involved. Yet U.S. judge finally forced the issue only after Legard and crew forced the issue.
Why did the defense serve him the last possible day?
You’re definitely not an attorney. They served him last day, as that’s the way the legal game is played. Or Banro attempted to strike or some other legal stay, etc. Nothing else. Really... nothing else.
Why was John Clarke removed the next day after he was served?
This I did not know. And don’t know, nor why. Ask Legard. And if you already know, why ask here, but rather tell us.
There is much more information that you are not aware of that lawyers have.
Geez, no kidding.
BAA_Up, thanks for reply, and good tidings.
I agree with you about the suit as filed, being rather broad and encompassing in Claim. I figured they (Legard) understand this, and can, if not intend to, amend their Complaint at some time, in particular after legal Discovery process findings. Legard and crew may have needed to file as they did broadly, per timing, information as known, expecting to amend, etc. Not sure, of course. I also have yet to read to Complaint, and Banro’s Answer. Legard won’t post it, Elevation keeps things half cryptic and maintains the guessing as if part of an exclusive club, etc. When I have more time (maybe soon, possibly not) I expect and intend to get a hold of the the legal filings. If nothing else, this case is interesting, in particular having owned and considered Banro fairly extensively.
Yes, you’re right. Clarke is about the only one remaining. Ha! Good point.
The biggest statement is that their is mass evidence based on banro s reactions to the suit that they are not working with or working against the shareholders. Lawyers and US courts are paying attention to this
The biggest statement is that their is mass evidence based on banro s reactions to the suit that they are not working with or working against the shareholders. Lawyers and US courts are paying attention to this
That's you opinion. To that, there are the following questions.
Why are multiple law firms going after Banro? They wouldn't waste time on a case they couldn't win.
Why is banro so desperate to keep this in Canada?
What ramifications did Banro cause by blocking aid in a foreign court?
Why did Banro defense refuse to serve John Clarke and why did this not sit well with US courts?
Why did the defense serve him the last possible day?
Why was John Clarke removed the next day after he was served?
There is much more information that you are not aware of that lawyers have.
P.S. And where should the money come from?
If you can harm them, which I doubt.
Hi SIO!
Glad to hear from you too.
Why I believe that nothing is to win from the lawsuits.
Because Banro has never said that there are no problems. But that's the accusation.
It was always reported on the incidents and also about temporary closures.
Thus, only an idiot can assume that there is worked safely.
it was never peaceful in the Congo anyway.
No one could suspect that the uprisings were so strong and violence escalated, not even Banro.
To prove this one does not need particularly good lawyers.
My opinion is that you would need other charges for success.
Illegal business, bribery or other financial irregularities.
You have received little thanks here on this board, for your warnings.
This shows the quality of message boards.
I hope you are satisfied and successful, wish you all the best and .... until another time.
P.s. about CEO Clarke. Do not be surprised, all were already gone, in time....
Yeah, insurance policy not enough. Assets are plenty. An award would likely transition as award back to share equity ownership. Yet maybe cash?, yet seems less likely assets would have to be tapped and sold.
It may be enough. Also throw in the property and the amount of gold reserves they have. It's much more than enough.
It's evident that banro management under estimated the intelligence and grit of shareholders due to either arrogance, stupidity, or both. A handful of managers vs thousands of shareholders, in which many of them are educated.
Not quite enough, is it?
That’s me and most longs on this board. Rode it up to great paper profits when the gold miners bull started from its five year low. BAA went to .4999. Pre-reverse, pre-split. Pre two Recapitalizations. Was a triple.
At least one LONG who finally lost when Banro zeroed and SOLD his shares, decided to invest in a law suit and total reliance upon others for any chance to regain equity.
Banro has a 100 million insurance policy every year
The suit timeline begins in January 2016. So if you're an ex shareholder but were one after that date (or a current shareholder that sold for a loss after that date), you may be eligible
Hi _Up. Nice to hear from you. You may be right about no gains from the lawsuits, yet would be ‘rewarding’ to see Banro lose them with requirement to compensate now ex-shareholders. Interesting that CEO Clarke named specifically as a defendant.
Ugly self reflection Bites upon others When seen
You are right, I should have said NOBODY or NOBODIES in this case. Negativity lives together.
"OBJECTIVELY" and completely NEGATIVE just like you TURNED. Every objective statement was meet by both of you with NEGATIVITY.
Insults went BOTH WAYS. If someone insults something of mine they are insulting me. His were more consistent, just look how the latest volley was started. He opened his mouth and should have remained silent, no need to dig up the past. That is done. I didn't start the battle but I won't let stupidity take a shoot at me for free.
YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT GETTING A LIFE BECAUSE NOBODY believes either of you negative nannies, Who even though seek to do damage when there is not even a stock to talk about.
"unjustified allegations" that sums up the last 2 years of both of your posts. Just mouth: no proof and that lead to no one who was really objective seeing it.
Your guarantees are equal to your promises of NOT POSTING HERE ANYMORE! My compensation will be from a lawsuit won against a company that tried to break faith in secret.
Congratulations you earned yourself an IGNORE USER just like your brother.
You described the poster you responded to very well.
Thanks for your post.
A brain dead man can not find the fault in himself.
He can not even understand you.
further ... I do not think anyone here gets compensation, not even in years. Then it does not work.
Such is life and the human condition. Humans are not perfect but flawed- one way or another. That's the reality.
Same thing can be seen in life around us... objectively studying human behavior. Also, objectivity can be a challenge for us humans as ego can be an obstacle for us. However, such an attitude rarely helps those who follow that behavior and continue in that attitude- whether aware or unaware. GLTY
Some posters always-looking to-blame everyone else but themself.
WRONG as USUAL, LOST as USUAL, On IGNORE again As USUAL.
Somethings change U do not! Always Loser.
LONGS were fooled by me? Hmm, such influence.
Guess LONGS do care. And are listening.
FOOLED this Board. WE can't Tell.
I don’t invest time in hating, that’s for losers.
Gosh, YOU care so much as to regularly respond!
NOTHING YOU ARE INTERETED IN OR PROMOTE LOSER
How about something you HATE, That should be a Winner!
Who Cares What U thought, NO ONE, And That REMAINS CONSTANT
Not 100%, yet speculative, agree with you there.
Banro developed into an actual gold producing company, with one, and then another producing gold mine. That’s not 100% speculative.
Mngt lied, and lied, after lied.
nobody 'invest' in these stocks
it's 100% speculation or 'gambling'
Banro relied upon sheeple investors, now hoping for a legal class action savior. I was one of them,, well before the suit, but got out a LONG time ago, much closer to entry valuation, before BAA dropped 90+% more. Writing was on the wall, as I thought about what was really happening. I stated and restated here. I received harsh critism from posters here. I was correct, and limited my losses tremendously. Others have lost all shares which Banro has now in total eviscerated. I hope Banro loses the class action and any other suits. Will be years, if so. And if won, investors VERY likely to recoup less if not small fraction of the investment basis.
NOTHING YOU ARE INVOLVED IN OR PROMOTE LOSER
What’s your next great LONG and STRONG investment where you intend to have the comapny’s management eviscerate the shares where then you have to rely yet on someone else with your HOPE to get lucky this someone files a shareholder class action to afford you the CHANCE of recouping some shareholder value, and even then if won, likely at valuation well under your LONG and STRONG investment basis?
stupid more stupid the most stupid
Like the excuses of Banro
Followers
|
245
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
63744
|
Created
|
07/24/09
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Banro is a Canadian gold company with two wholly-owned producing gold mines and two wholly-owned advancing gold exploration projects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Twangiza mine produced 135,532 oz Au in 2015. The new Namoya gold mine entered commercial production on January 1, 2016 and has production targets of 9,000 to 10,000 oz Au per month. Exploration is ongoing at the fully permitted and licensed projects of Kamituga and Lugushwa. With Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves of 3.18 million oz Au, a Measured and Indicated resource of 7.04 million oz Au and an Inferred resource of 5.08 million oz Au, Banro’s properties host a major gold resource.
The Company’s two operating gold mines are Twangiza, which produced 135,500 oz Au in 2015, and Namoya, which entered commercial production in January 2016 and has production targets of 9,000 to 10,000 oz Au per month. Multiple new exploration targets have been identified on both the Twangiza and Namoya properties. Meanwhile, exploration is ongoing at the fully permitted and licensed projects of Kamituga and Lugushwa.
In addition to these four licensed projects, Banro also holds 14 exploration permits covering 2,638 square kilometres and located on highly prospective ground between its Twangiza and Lugushwa projects. Applications for additional exploration permits contiguous to and located between the Company's Lugushwa and Namoya projects, along with areas south of Twangiza, are pending.
To date, only 12 percent of the concession area has been explored using modern exploration techniques.
Qualified Person Daniel K. Bansah, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Aus.I.M.M), the Company's Vice President, Exploration and a "qualified person" (as such term is defined in National Instrument 43-101), has reviewed and approved the technical information included on this web site with respect to the Company's gold properties.
The first of Banro's two gold mines, Twangiza is targeted to produce 110,000 to 120,000 oz Au in 2016
Twangiza Mine
Twangiza became Banro's first producing open pit gold mine in October 2011, and commenced commercial production in September 2012. With mill throughput currently operating slightly above capacity of 1.7 million tonnes per year, Twangiza in 2015 produced 135,532 ounces of gold. The mine has an expected life of 14 years from currently defined reserves.
The property is located 45 kilometres south-southwest of Bukavu in South Kivu Province and consists of six Exploitation Permits covering 1,164 square kilometres in the highly-prospective 210km long Twangiza-Namoya gold belt.
Twangiza is the most advanced of Banro's four properties with a Mineral Reserve of 27.67 million tonnes grading 2.05 g/t Au containing 1.82 million ounces of gold. Measured and Indicated resources at Twangiza are 99.35 million tonnes grading 1.47 g/t Au containing 4.69 million ounces of gold plus an Inferred Resource of 9.83 million tonnes grading 1.17 g/t Au containing 370,000 oz Au. The updated resource calculation used a cut-off grade of 0.4 g/t Au.
The Twangiza deposit is comprised of two resource components - an oxide portion and a transition rock/fresh rock (non-oxide) portion. The current activities involve mining and processing a blend of both oxide and non-oxide material within the reserve pit shell using the existing plant. Exploration activities are focused on growing the oxide resource.
In 2016, management efforts will focus on increasing plant production through expansion of the fine crushing circuit. This is expected to create a finer grind which is more amenable for improved leach dissolution. The additional crushing equipment has been procured and is expected to be commissioned in the third quarter of 2016.
The most recent technical report with respect to Twangiza that has been filed by Banro on SEDAR is dated July 29, 2015 and entitled NI 43-101 Technical Report, Mineral Resource and Reserve Update, December 31 2014, Twangiza Gold Mine, Democratic Republic of the Congo. A copy of this report may be accessed at www.sedar.com.
Banro's second gold mine, Namoya, began commercial production on January 1, 2016
Banro's Namoya (oxide and free-milling) mine entered commercial production on January 1, 2016. At full capacity, the Namoya mine, a hybrid heap leach – CIL plant, is expected to produce 9,000 to 10,000 ounces of gold per month.
Namoya has a Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve of 20.94 million tonnes grading 2.02 g/t Au containing 1.36 million ounces of gold. Measured and Indicated resources at Namoya are 25.68 million tonnes grading 1.96 g/t Au containing 1.62 million ounces of gold plus an Inferred Resource of 5.03 million tonnes grading 1.63 g/t Au containing 260,000 oz Au. The updated resource calculation used a cut-off grade of 0.4 g/t Au.
The Namoya property lies at the southern end of the Twangiza-Namoya gold belt in Maniema province, approximately 210 kilometers southwest of Twangiza and consists of one PE covering an area of 174 square kilometres.
Mine/Project/Category | Tonnes (Mt) | Grade (g/t Au) | Gold (Mozs) |
---|---|---|---|
Twangiza | |||
Proven | 6.21 | 2.19 | 0.44 |
Probable | 21.47 | 2.01 | 1.39 |
Total Proven & Probable | 27.67 | 2.05 | 1.82 |
Namoya | |||
Proven | 17.90 | 2.10 | 1.21 |
Probable | 3.04 | 1.53 | 0.15 |
Total Proven & Probable | 20.94 | 2.02 | 1.36 |
TOTAL MINERAL RESERVE | |||
Proven | 24.10 | 2.12 | 1.65 |
Probable | 24.50 | 1.95 | 1.54 |
Total Proven & Probable | 48.61 | 2.03 | 3.18 |
Note: Rounding of numbers may result in computational discrepancies.Mineral Reserves included in Mineral Resources.
Mine/Project/Category | Tonnes | Grade (g/t Au) | Gold (Moz) |
---|---|---|---|
Twangiza (Oxide) | |||
Measured | 2.49 | 1.99 | 0.16 |
Indicated | 8.57 | 1.86 | 0.51 |
Measured & Indicated | 11.06 | 1.89 | 067 |
Inferred | 1.56 | 1.20 | 0.06 |
Twangiza (Transition & Fresh) | |||
Measured | 3.11 | 2.11 | 0.21 |
Indicated | 85.18 | 1.40 | 3.81 |
Measured & Indicated | 88.29 | 1.42 | 4.02 |
Inferred | 8.27 | 1.17 | 0.31 |
Namoya (Oxide & Free-milling) | |||
Measured | 20.44 | 2.02 | 1.33 |
Indicated | 5.24 | 1.73 | 0.29 |
Measured & Indicated | 25.68 | 1.96 | 1.62 |
Inferred | 5.03 | 1.63 | 0.26 |
Lugushwa (Oxide) | |||
Indicated | 16.91 | 1.35 | 0.73 |
Inferred | 6.17 | 1.56 | 0.31 |
Lugushwa (Transition & Fresh) | |||
Inferred | 65.01 | 1.54 | 3.22 |
Kamituga | |||
Inferred (Surface) | 4.14 | 2.40 | 0.32 |
Inferred (Underground) | 3.12 | 6.00 | 0.60 |
TOTAL MEASURED & INDICATED | 141.94 | 1.54 | 7.04 |
TOTAL INFERRED | 93.29 | 1.70 | 5.08 |
www.banro.com/assets/pdf/2016-09-banro-presentation.pdf
Common Shares Outstanding | 302,309,005 |
Options | 20,414,192 |
Warrants | 34,200,0001 |
Exchangeable Preferred Shares | 63,000,0002 |
Series A Preference Shares | 116,0003 |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |