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.
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.
Don't hold your breath. This goose is cooked and it ain't gonna fly no mo'.
Pretty much so. They have no assets, even the IP no longer belongs to them. The company was basically purchased from CCE for 5 million shares of a 3 cent stock. The first reverse split has been announced RPTN shareholders are left holding the bag.
So, what do you think it means? Perhaps an MOC order filling?
If I want to exit a position but can't watch the stock all day for the best exit point I can make use of a conditional order. The order is actually two or more orders where the execution of one, cancels all of the rest.
For instance. let's say I own 1000 XYZ and wish to exit the position but the stock has been trading up and down between $9.50 and $10 lately and I want to get top price. I can put in a One Cancels All order where the first order in the group is Sell 1000 XYZ Limit $9.90 and a second order of Sell 1000 XYZ MOC (Market On Close). Now, if the stock hits $9.90, the first order executes which automatically cancels the second order. If the first (Limit) order does not execute, the second automatically kicks in to sell the 1000 shares of XYZ at the Market as near to the close as possible.
Conditional orders come in many flavors and are sometimes quite useful. You should read about the different conditional orders your online broker offers.
Re: IRS Section 382 Limitations on Net Operating Loss carryover
Now, some here may not care whether RPTN's loss is deductible or not. After all, one may argue, the deduction only comes into play if they actually produce taxable income. While that much is true, and it's certainly a huge 'IF' involved there, the false assumption of deductiblity certainly does speak to the competence, or lack thereof, of management.
If they truly bought the company in whole or in part for a tax deduction, they wasted shareholder's money needlessly. If they did not, they misled a lot of people either intentionally (bordering on fraud) or unintentionally (crossed over the border into stupid). Either way, one certainly has to question management's intent and competence.
Zimbabwe: Country Sliding Back Into Chaos
January 22, 2012 article from The Zimbabwe Standard
Zimbabwe is slowly sliding back into political mayhem that existed just prior to the formation of the coalition government, political analysts have warned.
The government of national unity (GNU) formed in 2009 ended a wave of political violence that was characterised by murder, kidnappings, torture and massive displacements of people.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201201230552.html
Regarding inquiries about another poster's holdings....
"Posts of this nature are a bit of a judgment call. If the message is presented in a friendly, conversational manner, then we favor leaving the message. However, if it's phrased in a disparaging or demeaning way, it should be removed. No matter how the message is presented, if it's received unfavorably (i.e. "none of your business") then both should be deleted." - FAQ regarding deletions.
When asked of a critic, the usual reason for asking is to start the never ending "Why are you here?/Why are you posting?" game. In fairness, there may be times when someone is asking for another reason. In that case, I think it's only fair if the asker first reveals the details of his/her holdings, number of shares, when acquired, at what price, and the reason for asking etc.
Then, the person being asked MIGHT be more inclined to answer. It is still a free choice whether to answer favorably (question and answer will remain) or unfavorably (question and answer will be removed).
If you are asking if you can use the board to post facts and opinions, of course. You have always been free to do so. That is what this board is for. I encourage you to do so.
If you are asking if you can exclude any dissenting opinions from appearing, the answer is no. The board is for the exchange of information and opinions whether or not we agree with them.
If you are asking if you can engage in personal attacks and other activities which are against the rules, the answer is again, no.
If one's position is so weak that it can only be defended through argumentum ad hominem, perhaps one should do more research.
There are many different types of false arguments. Argumentum ad ridiculum or in plain English appeal to mockery and horse laugh is the weapon of the loser. This of course has no intellectual value and serves only as a feel good factor for the loser. (A definition from the web)
Again, serious discussion and debate is welcomed and encouraged. Anyone who feels they have not been treated fairly should first read the IHub User/Moderator Handbook (link posted in the sticky at the top of the messages). If, after reading the handbook, one still feels aggrieved, one may contact an IH Administrator.
ALL users, whether free or paid, can PM Admin.
There are only two other things to remember.
The rules are easy to follow and they apply to everyone.
PS - If you click on 'Bans' at the top of the message list, you will see that only one person has been banned from posting on this board. He was not banned for posting his opinion.
Let this please be the end of this particular discussion. Let's get on with the discussion of Lantis Laser, the purpose of this board.
Missing from Zimbabwe?
Why is there no TAG Minerals or TAG-Z Minerals listed as a mining company in Zimbabwe?
http://www.mbendi.com/a_sndmsg/org_srch.asp?GLOC=L2&INDY=IMING
Strange country, that a whole company could go "missing".
Here's another story in the Zibabwe news:
http://www.swradioafrica.com/2012/01/19/zanu-pf-winning-votes-making-money-in-new-gold-rush/
Reading that story makes one wonder how LLSR/TAG could ever expect to get an appreciable amount of gold out of the country let alone protect it with a little lock box on their trailer.
"But soon after the government deployed armed units to ‘control’ the area. This ‘Operation Hakudzokwi’ resulted in the deaths of at least 200 people in a killing spree that witnesses described as a ‘war zone’, with soldiers firing on diamond panners from the ground and from helicopters. Other victims have also told stories of being attacked and brutalized and a number of women were raped. No perpetrators have ever been brought to book and no official investigation has been launched."
Golly! They've got soldiers firing from the ground an from helicopters on children at a department store over basketball shoes? Or maybe you're just comparing apples and oranges?
"I am looking for a site that is even balanced with tangible evidence regardless if their opinion is trending negative or positive."
You've got that here. There would be a whole lot more "positive" posts if there had been a whole lot LESS personal attacks. No post was ever or ever will be removed for being "positive". ALL posts that were removed, were removed for violating IHub rules.
I have posted a link to the rules as a sticky for easy reference. Contained in the link is also the proceedure to request an Admin review. I imagine that any post that the violaton was not obvous to the poster has been appealed already and that a site Administrator has upheld the removal and explained the reason for such.
If you really can't post within the rules, you probably should find another forum. The IHub rules are there for us all.
The IRC § 382 Limitation
Section 382 applies when a change in ownership of more than 5% occurs.
Continuity of Business Enterprise
A lack of continuity of business enterprise triggers a further limitation that must be considered when section 382 applies. If a loss corporation does not meet a continuity of business enterprise test at all times in the two-year period following the ownership change, the 382 limitation for any post-change year is zero. For example, if Vulture Corporation purchased Loss Corporation and then discontinued Loss Corporation’s business and disposed of all of its assets, the 382 limit would be to zero, meaning no NOL would be allowed for use in the future.
Meeting the continuity of business enterprise test is based on all of the facts and circumstances. The rules are included in the tax regulations and generally state that the acquiring corporation must continue the loss corporation’s historic business (“business continuity”) or use a significant portion of the loss corporation’s historic business assets (“asset continuity”) in a business.
Read the rules
This board is not an appropriate venue for complaints or discussing reasons for removed posts. Suffice it to say that if you follow the IHub rules, your posts cannot and will not be removed.
ANYONE who feels their post has been removed in error can protest such removal and ask for a review by site Admin. Before you contact Admin though, READ THE RULES!
http://ihwiki.advfn.com/index.php?title=Handbook
Intro Message now corrected to reflect reality.
TAG Minerals Inc. acquired a 49% interest in TAG – Z for a 33% interest in TAG Minerals, Inc. The remaining 51% ownership in TAG – Z is held by a Director of the Company, a Zimbabwe resident, Tapiwa Gurupira.
So it appears that TAG Minerals Inc holds a 49% interest in TAG-Z and Tapiwa Gurupira holds the other 51% personally. Additionally, Gurupira holds a personal interest in 33% of TAG Minerals Inc. acquired in exchange for the 49% of TAG-Z.
Therefore, LLSR can ONLY hold a 67% interest in TAG Minerals Inc.
Another reason this smells fishy.....
The IRC § 382 Limitation
Section 382 applies when a change in ownership of more than 5% occurs.
Continuity of Business Enterprise
A lack of continuity of business enterprise triggers a further limitation that must be considered when section 382 applies. If a loss corporation does not meet a continuity of business enterprise test at all times in the two-year period following the ownership change, the 382 limitation for any post-change year is zero. For example, if Vulture Corporation purchased Loss Corporation and then discontinued Loss Corporation’s business and disposed of all of its assets, the 382 limit would be to zero, meaning no NOL would be allowed for use in the future.
Meeting the continuity of business enterprise test is based on all of the facts and circumstances. The rules are included in the tax regulations and generally state that the acquiring corporation must continue the loss corporation’s historic business (“business continuity”) or use a significant portion of the loss corporation’s historic business assets (“asset continuity”) in a business.
Is this becoming a "dental imaging, gold mining, ethernet switch" business or is management delusional?
You asked, "Who said Tapiwa is legally the same as LLSR?"
Why, YOU did, you said, "Tapiwa... the "T" in TAG owns 33% of TAG Minerals Inc.... the "G" in TAG owns 33% of TAG Minerals Inc... and the "A" in TAG owns 33% of TAG Minerals Inc. However, LLSR owns 100% of TAG Minerals Inc."
Tapiwa CAN'T POSSIBLY own 33% of TAG if LLSR owns 100% of TAG and LLSR CAN'T POSSIBLY own 100% of TAG if Tapiwa owns 33% unless you are arguing that LLSR and Tapiwa are the same entity.
Individual officers and directors are not synonymous with the company and cannot be used interchangeably even if their initials are in the name. They can and do have holdings that are separate from the company's.
Just another reason this smells fishy. Unless you're a fan of 133% ownership.
TAG Minerals, Inc. DOES own 49% of TAG-Z. However, LLSR only owns a 67% interest in TAG Minerals, Inc. So LLSR's actual interest in TAG-Z is only 33%.
"TAG Minerals Inc. on January 4, 2011, then amended on April 2, 2011 acquired a 49% interest in TAG – Z for a 33% interest in
TAG. The remaining 51% ownership in TAG – Z is held by a Director of the Company, a Zimbabwe resident, Tapiwa Gurupira.
TAG – Z will be the operating arm of TAG, initially, -, with the Company being the primary beneficiary of all the activities of its
subsidiary, TAG, and their associated company TAG – Z."
One of the results of this transaction is a further loss of transparency as, "All significant intercompany accounts and
transactions have been eliminated in consolidation."
Good edits! No personal attacks.
The rule of thumb is ANY pejoritive references to another poster or group of posters constitutes a personal attack and the offending post will be removed. For example calling other posters pumpers, shills, bashers, haters or similar is cause for removal of the post.
If anyone feels a post was removed in error, they may appeal to site ADMIN. If anyone feels a post should be removed for violation of TOS, they may report it to site ADMIN.
HP, regarding the cost of doing business in alluvial gold mining...
Pacific Gold Corp has been in the business for about 8 years now. Their Business Description sounds a lot like LLSR's.
Pacific Gold is engaged in the identification, acquisition, and development of mining prospects believed to have known gold and/or
tungsten mineralizations. The main objective is to identify, and develop commercially viable mineralizations on prospects over which the company has rights that could produce revenues. These types of prospects may also contain mineralization of metals often found with gold and/or tungsten which also may be worth processing. Development of commercially viable mineralization of any metal includes a high degree of risk which careful evaluation, experience and factual knowledge may not eliminate, and therefore, we may never produce any significant revenues.
Pacific Gold Corp. owns 100% of four operating subsidiaries; Nevada Rae Gold, Inc., Fernley Gold, Inc., Pilot Mountain Resources Inc., and Pacific Metals Corp. through which it holds various prospects in Nevada and Colorado. The Company intends to acquire through staking, purchasing and/or leasing arrangements additional prospects, from time to time, in which there may be gold, tungsten and/or other mineral deposit potential.
Last quarter they posted revenues of $71,019 and the cost of production was $78,687, not including depreciation. This resulted in a net operating loss of ($389,041). And that doesn't include the cost of paying off the local warlords, bribes, 10% Mining Royalties (off the top), and a MINIMUM of 51% to the indigenous ownership.
So you can see that my example cost of doing business in Zimbabwe was really quite reasonable.
By the way, the ticker for Pacific Gold is PCFG. They are currently trading at $0.017
Who said voting was required? I must have missed that post. Could you kindly point it out? Or did you just make that up?.....again.
So, a year and a half and they still have no idea of what they have?
"Sounds like we have a number". You hear that on the jungle drums, didja, bwanna? Or did you just make that up?.....again. LOL!
"...now that sounds encouraging!" Why? What's in it? So far, just hot air.
Bankable??? Maybe when they start selling those 400,000,000 shares. {8^D
Every scam SOUNDS interesting. That's why they come up with names like "The Mineral King of Wall Street" for someone whose closest qualifications are he took a tablespoon of mineral oil once for constipation and he watched a trailer for the movie, "Wall $treet". Hype, pure and simple, but it does sound "interesting" as long as you don't actualy think about it.
So you really believe that's all there is to it. You just drive your truck up to a pile of dirt, throw a few shovelfuls in, turn it on and out comes a couple of ounces of gold? Sorry it's taking so long to respond it's just hard to type while I'm laughing so hard.
The HPC-30 is a lot less sophisticated than my uncles' dredge and sluice operation of course theirs was a lot less portable. There are some similarities but all in all theirs was a commercial operation. The HPC-30 is more of a hobbyist or light duty rig. I doubt if one unit would average an ounce a day. Of course, we have still not seen the assay-ton reports on any "claim".
You say, "...the "T" in TAG Minerals Zimbabwe (Private) Limited is also the same "T" on the LLSR board of directors..." And that means exactly what???? That is a guaranty of what?
Shamva Gold has more than 1000 employees at just one of their mines. You make a lot of unconnected observations but offer no facts that say anything to affirm LLSR's prospects.
John Deere is the #1 rated farm tractor. According to your logic, that means anyone with a John Deere will be more at successful at farming than anyone who owns Case equipment. {8^D
I guess I should ammend my statement regarding the split to say, "At least 51% has to go to the "indigenous" owners." I expected you to use SOME common sense.
You said, "51% will be used in Zimbabwe to pay all the operating costs and taxes and expansion programs...etc.... while the 49% flips over to the USA as a dividend..." And you can PROVE that?
Or were you just making that up....again. {8^D
I almost bought a '56 DeSoto 2dr hardtop (one owner, low miles) myself back in '63. Was talked out of it by a friend and went with a '56 Buick Roadmaster instead.
There's gold all over. Two of my uncles used to run a dredge and sluice operation up in Oregon. On a really good day they made as much as $500 each. Many days they made little or nothing.
Some people think that all you have to do is dip a dishpan into the gravel, swish it a few times and you've got thousands of dollars in gold. It just ain't that simple.
In order to support 400,000,000 shares of LLSR and probably another 200,000,000 or more shares of whatever RPTN is to be, you've got to have miners, lots of miners and equipment, lots of equipment. Then you need around the clock security to watch the miners so they don't steal too much and more security to keep the claim jumpers and other bad guys out and prevent the equipment from disappearing. Then there's the payoffs.
That's assuming a ligitimate operation. I'm not sure this qualifies. I think the real gold mine is private placements and other stock sales.
No one as seen any assay-ton report or even an estimate, so who knows how many tons of material have to be processed to get an ounce of gold?
I'm not trying to talk you or anyone else out of investing. It's your money. I'm just telling the other side of the story.
Oh! And don't forget, 51% has to go to the "indigenous" owners.
You've heard the saying, "There's two sides to every story", haven't you?
Well, I'm just telling the other side of the story. {8^D
The pumping will come later. First the "set up" portion needs to be completed. Meanwhile, the major players can collect their salaries while they sit back and wait.
You don't want to "salt the mine" too early, so to speak. Otherwise, interest would be waning at the time they would most wish it to be waxing.
Earlier this month, someone found some gold. Almost immediately, groups of vigilantes had taken control of the area and were demanding “tax” from the panners.
Announcing the takeover of the area at a rally attended by hundreds of panners who had been chased away from the fields by police, Zanu PF Midlands, provincial security officer Owen “Mudha” Ncube said the gold deposits in Sherwood belonged to his party. Mudha said Zanu PF had fought in the liberation struggle to ensure that Zimbabweans owned their land and the minerals in it and therefore had rights to control who mined at the fields.
The Sherwood Block mining claim is now registered to Cornelius Mpereri a close ally of Emmerson Mnangagwa (Zanu PF secretary of legal Affairs) and to Josphats “Gold” Sibanda who also attended the rally.
Zanu PF has started compiling registers of people who will be allowed to enter the fields to mine the precious metal.
“Only the sons of Midlands will be allowed to enter the fields and they will do so through party structures, those that are not known within the party will not have access and those from outside the Midlands will not be allowed here”, said Mudha after chanting numerous party slogans denigrating the person of MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
Zimbabwe Mining Federation Midlands chairman Anorld Mandava confirmed the claims now belonged to Sibanda and Mpereri who would be given a certain percentage by panners who found gold from the claims.
“The panners will be let into the fields in groups and will be allowed to keep a certain percentage of what they find while they also give Sibanda and Mpereri their share.”
Is Al a "Son of Midlands"?
Then there's the 10% "Mining Royalties" imposed by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority. These "Royalties" are set as a percentage of gross production, regardless of profits. Meaning they come right off the top. Zimbabwean law requires that all miners remit these royalties to government. If you extracted $10,000 worth of gold and your total expenses were $9500, you would only be $500 in the hole after "Royalties". Then, of course, you'd still have to pay Mudhat and "Gold" Shobootie their shares.
Seems like a guy could go broke if he really discovered gold in Zimbabwe.
Here are more exact numbers, from the Notice:
As of January 9, 2012, the Company had 198,009,290 shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding. Based on the number of shares currently issued and outstanding, immediately following the Reverse Split the Company would have approximately 19,800,929 shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding (without giving effect to rounding for fractional shares and the issuance of an additional 79,078,817 postsplit shares of Common Stock to be issued to Lantis Laser under the Stock Purchase Agreement).
The number of authorized shares of the Company will not be changed in connection with the Reverse Split. In addition, the par value of the Common Stock will not be changed in connection with the Reverse Split.
Per above, the number of authorized shares will remain at 500,000,000 - yielding 400,000,000 shares to sell.
Again, look at "the Mineral King's" past. Minerals? NO! Mining? NO! Stock promotion and sales.....
And it can all be done from the comfortable basement offices at 41 Howe Lane.
Not exactly hp. They increased the AUTHORIZED shares to 500,000,000. After the reverse split, there will be approximately 100,000,000 issued and outstanding and 400,000,000 available to a possible boiler room operation.
Shareholder lists from RPTN and LLSR provide a starting list of prospective people that can be talked into buying shares on promises of big returns and cajoled with threats of "missing out" if you don't act now. THAT's the real gold mine.
Remember that Al's area of expertise is NOT mining, it's selling stock! Check out the companies he's worked for previously. Check where there offices are now and what they do. Minerals? LOL!
Remember, LLSR shareholders are minority holders in the Zimbabwe operations and are therefore possibly subject to the same treatment. But it doesn't matter. I suspect the real gold mine is in the freshly authorized shares.
Ratpoor shareholders STEAMROLLERED! BYE BYE!
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=50771509
I never said that you said, "...TAG (Z) was wholly owned or controlled by LLSR". I don't know where you got that idea.
Now that we have established that LLSR has only a minority interest in TAG-Z, we can begin to dig for the facts. You say that LLSR has a 49% interest but I think you are making an unwarranted assumption. The Zimbabwe Indigenization and Economic Empowerment Act requires the business be AT LEAST 51% indigenous owned but there is no reason it can't be 99% indigenous.
As I have said, I have seen no written revenue sharing agreement between TAG-Z and LLSR. It appears that LLSR could be on the hook for all the expenses but only a very small portion of any profit (if any).
"Secret" sources abound in these scams. RPTN had ChangeWave and Tobin Smith, later Josh Levin among others, pounding the table and calling it a "screaming buy" up to $2.50 all the way down to pennyland. Frankly, I can't believe why anyone would pay these hucksters money for their pumps, but they do.
It's not that I dislike Zimbabwe so much as there is no transparency in this particular deal. This thing is like an onion only the deeper you dig, the less you can see.
But speaking of Zimbabwe, did you know that this month, the "Mining Royalties" imposed by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority increased to 10%? And that these "Royalties" are set as a percentage of gross production, regardless of profits? Zimbabwean law requires that all miners remit royalties to government.
LLSR's possible percentage just keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Like I said, "All in all, this seems like an ideal "hole" to make money magically disappear."
WoW, you said, "There are no Zimbabwe public companies as there is no stock exchange..."
That is absolutely FALSE. The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, or ZSE, is the official stock exchange of Zimbabwe. It has been open to foreign investment since 1993.
http://www.moneyhub.net/scripts/cgiip.wsc/globalone/htm/company_list.r?picountry-id=1305&pcsort=Alphabetic
http://www.thezimbabwemail.com/business/10214-latest-from-the-zimbabwe-stock-exchange.html
A minor point but I thought I'd set the record straight. Hope that helps. [8^D
Glad to see you took the time to look up the differences between subsidiary and affiliate/associate companies. Now you realize that TAG Minerals Zimbabwe (PRIVATE) Limited, is not wholly owned and controlled by LLSR.
Lantis has only a minority interest in TAG-Z. You say that interest is 49%. I have seen nothing in writing to that effect. In fact, I have seen no written details of the revenue sharing agreement(s) between Lantis and TAG-Z, have you?
Additionally, as a minority interest, LLSR has limited legal say in any changes the majority interest wishes to make. That is the reason LLSR needed to buy the controlling interest in RPTN prior to initiating the reverse split. By holding the controlling interest, any votes on structural changes are merely a formality.
Back in July of last year, when your article was written, perhaps things appeared to be getting better. Just a month later, in August 2011, the press was reporting threats of nationalizations:
"Government minister Savior Kusakawere sent warnings to the businesses to prepare themselves to be nationalized or they would lose their licenses, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported Saturday."
"The businesses receiving warnings included mining companies and banks. BAT and Barclays were among the 13, the BBC said.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2011/08/20/Zimbabwe-conflicted-over-nationalization/UPI-83351313852023/#ixzz1jeIuhuE8
The latest warnings from the State Department are not so encouraging.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1063.html#safety
Finally, Zimbabwean law requires that all miners remit royalties to government. According to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, royalties are set as a percentage of gross production, regardless of profits.
All in all, this seems like an ideal "hole" to make money magically disappear.
By the way, YOU said, "It is my opinion that as the noose of the Zimbabwe Indigenous Law begins to tighten around SM's neck, TAG (Z) with its 10% ownership will closely monitor the dynamics to either walk away (if the company is performing poorly), acquire the remaining 41% (so SM meets the 51% native owned requirement) or take over 100%"
My reply was, "You opine that TAG-Z (Private} MIGHT take over another 41% or more of Slashwood. My first question is, with what? Doesn't a transaction like that require a large amount of money? I have more questions regarding that but don't wish to overwhelm you.
I do have a second question for now though. What do you think the term "(Private)" after every mention of "TAG Minerals Zimbabwe" signifies?"
Your personal attacks were uncalled for.
Homework is Required: In the company's reports and PRs, TAG Minerals, Inc. is described as a subsidiary of Lantis. TAG Minerals Zimbabwe (PRIVATE) Limited, on the other hand, is described as an affiliate or an associated company. They are described as seperate entities even though they share the name "TAG Minerals". Do you know the distinction between a subsidiary and an affiliate/associate? The distinction is quite important.
Another important distinction is a Private Limited company has NO legal reporting requirements, which could leave the door wide open to all sorts of abuse. Especially considering the conditions in Zimbabwe.
Part of Pietrangelo's compensation package is a new car and insurance paid for by the company. I guess it's a long commute from his bedroom to the basement.
With his $180k salary, car, insurance and other benefits and perks, I'd estimate his total compensation to be over a quarter million a year. Guess we know where the real gold mine is.
Somewhat disturbing is that the latest public record I found on that property, 41 Howe Ln, is a "Notice of Lis Pendens" tiled against Pietrangelo, in other words a notice of pending foreclosure! Hopefully that's been taken care of, but there's no record of satisfaction.
While we are waiting, how many people know that the address for the offices of Lantis are now listed as:
41 Howe Ln
Freehold NJ, 07728
And, the offices of TAG Minerals is located at:
41 Howe Ln
Freehold NJ, 07728
And, that 41 Howe Ln Freehold NJ, 07728, is a private home whose owner of record appears to be one Cindy Pietrangelo.
Yup, the "Mineral King" is running the operation out of "Mom's basement"! LOL!
You opine that TAG-Z (Private} MIGHT take over another 41% or more of Slashwood. My first question is, with what? Doesn't a transaction like that require a large amount of money? I have more questions regarding that but don't wish to overwhelm you.
I do have a second question for now though. What do you think the term "(Private)" after every mention of "TAG Minerals Zimbabwe" signifies?
Why? They were only hired as Raptor's pre-takeover audit firm to certify Raptor's financial statements as far as I know. Do you think they were advising Lantis on taxes too? Pretty poor accountants, if they were.