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.
Does anyone know how the law suit between Inspar & Planet came out?
It seems like it was 4 months ago that the trial ended.
GLTA
BVIG is not a valid symbol. You may look up the correct symbol, then edit your watch list to continue tracking this security.
As I understand it. Franklin received 130,000,000 shares of ENMI for the assets that were transferred to FMNJ. The company got the shares, not the officers. If ENMI were to prosper then they would also cause FMNJ to prosper too.
If my memory serves me correctly: William Petty and Howard Dunn each own 30 million and Kurt Neubauer has 14 million in ENMI.
To me it appears to be a fair deal for the stock holders. IMHO
Planet Resource Recovery, Inc. Expands Advisory Board with Addition of Veteran Oil & Gas Executive
BY Business Wire
— 11:00 AM ET 04/27/2011
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Planet Resource Recovery, Inc. (PRRY
Loading...
) is pleased to announce that the Company has expanded its Advisory Board with the addition of Mr. James A. Miller. Mr. Miller will advise and assist Planet Management with Public Company Corporate issues and its continuing endeavors of the commercialization of PetroLuxus™ to the Oil & Gas Industry.
Mr. Miller brings a wealth of experience, knowledge and relationships in the Oil and Gas Industry. Throughout his professional career he has held numerous positions including: Pumping Services Market Research Analyst for the Western Company of N.A., Senior Field Sales Rep. for early stage introduction of Ceramic Proppant in the oil patch with Standard Oil Proppants (Carbo Ceramics), VP of Mktg & Corporate Development for Quasar Tech, Inc., North American Sales Manager for Southwestern Petroleum, District Sales Manager of Unimin Corporation for the distribution and development of Frac Sand/Gravel Packs, and Advisor for New Business Development for Freestone Resources.
He has been a strong advocate and firmly believes that oil field technology innovation represents a key competitive advantage in the oil & gas industry. Examples of this commitment include: Ceramic Proppant and Steam Injection gravel pack commercialization, Frac Pack development in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and Old School refinements for defining Oil & Gas potential in step-outs, deepenings and extensions of existing oil & gas fields.
“As we refocus our energies and efforts to the commercialization of PetroLuxus, Mr. Miller is a valuable addition to our current Corporate, Marketing and Sales efforts,” commented Enrique M. Salinas, President and CEO of Planet. “The addition of Mr. Miller could not have come at a more appropriate time. With his assistance and guidance we will expand our market penetration and continue to grow our revenues in the Oil & Gas industry.”
Mr. Miller currently serves as a Corporate Advisor to a Public Oil & Gas Technology Company, a Private Bank, a Private Capital Management Company, an Unconventional Oil & Gas Surveys entity and a Public Green Technology Company.
Mr. Miller earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Management at Texas Christian University (TCU) in 1973 and his MBA in Management & Marketing in 1975 at Texas Christian University (TCU). His continuing education includes Halliburton Energy Institute, University of Texas Oil & Gas Production Fundamentals, Chemical Marketing Research Association Seminars, to name a few. He is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), National Association of Corporate Directors & Advisors (NACD), Dallas Chapter (NACD) and The Fort Worth Petroleum Club.
About Planet Resource Recovery, Inc (PRRY
Loading...
).
Planet Resource Recovery, Inc. (PRRY
Loading...
) is the developer, manufacturer and marketer of PetroLuxus™, a Green Technology that maximizes hydrocarbon recovery in the Oil & Gas industry. Documented well history case studies indicate deployment of PetroLuxus technologies has helped Oil & Gas Operators increase oil recovery, reduce maintenance costs and decrease downtime. For more information visit: www.planetresource.net.
Planet Resource Recovery Inc
April 21, 2011
PLANET RESOURCE RECOVERY CHAIRMAN AND CEO
ISSUES SHAREHOLDER AUDIO UPDATE
HOUSTON, TX -- April 21, 2011 -- Planet Resource Recovery, Inc. (PLANET) (PINKSHEETS: PRRY), developer, manufacturer and marketer of PetroLuxus(TM) and other green remediation and recovery technologies, issues shareholder audio update from Kurt E. Neubauer, Chairman of the Board and CEO. Complete transcript below or can be heard at - http://www.planetresource.net/audio/audio_update_04_20_11.wma
Dear Shareholder:
Hello, this is Kurt Neubauer, President and CEO of Planet Resource Recovery. Thank you for taking the time to join us for this audio update. I wanted to inform you of some of the events occurring at Planet.
Inspar Litigation
Due to the current litigation, the only news we can relay concerning Inspar is that a preliminary hearing was started on the 28th of March, and was concluded on April 14th. Upon advice of counsel, we have been instructed to not comment on this pending litigation. We would, however, like to bring you updated information on other activities going at Planet.
Form 10 Filing
We continue to work toward our goal to file the Company's Form 10 information statement, which unfortunately has slowed down due to the ongoing Inspar litigation. However, as of this date, we have posted our unaudited financials through the first quarter of 2011 on our website and on www.Pinksheets.com.
SRU-15 Desulfurization Unit
Planet and Lerro Processing have decided to defer R&D efforts for the completion of the SRU-15 diesel fuel desulfurization units until adequate financing can be arranged. The Company and Lerro have worked diligently together to bring this new and exciting technology to market. However, until Planet has established a stronger financial foundation, no further investment will be made in this system. This is only an intermission as we plan to complete the development of this technology when adequate capital is available.
Raptor Ventures LLC and Bolivia Mining Operations
Operations in Bolivia are currently on hold. Due to capital shortfalls, Planet was not able to complete the antimony sale with the Chinese buyer. Ore was shipped to the Chilean port, but due to a missing export document, the ore got hung up because of the missing paperwork. Once the paperwork was produced, the Chilean government required us to truck the ore back to the Bolivian border to restart the export process. Planet did not have and could not raise the necessary funds to deal with this unexpected turn of events and the ore was eventually taken back by its' owner. Regardless of the setback, Planet sees a vast opportunity in Bolivia, not only for mining but also for the sale of it PetroLuxus products.
PetroLuxus Sales
The Company has completed its' initial studies on PetroLuxus and has begun to market the product. Mr. Enrique Salinas accepted the position of VP - Marketing - PetroLuxus as of January 1 of this year. Since accepting the position, Mr. Salinas has sold over $84,000 in PetroLuxus product for the first quarter of 2011 to former, current and new customers. The first quarter sales mark doubles full year sales of PetroLuxus in 2010. Sales for the second quarter have already begun and Mr. Salinas' goal is to improve the Company's first quarter sales performance results by 25%.
Corporate Office Move
In February 2011, the lease for Corporate Head Quarters in Houston, Texas was up. Due to the current capital requirements, we did not enter into a new lease, but consolidated our Corporate Offices with our Production Facilities. Due to the consolidation, we were unable to move our phone number to the Pearland facilities. Our Corporate Office address and phone number are as follows:
Planet Resource Recovery, Inc.
8815 Industrial Drive
Pearland, Texas 77584
And our new corporate phone number is 281-213-5622.
In Conclusion:
The Company understands that many have been waiting a long time for news. We were not able to publish any news on advice of counsel up to this point. It became obvious to management that investment capital could not be raised due to the recent drop in share pricing and that PetroLuxus sales production had to be established before continued investment could be made. Planet's management had no desire to further dilute our shareholders at such low share pricing and believes through sales of our PetroLuxus products the Company's stock price will turn around. Therefore, we are now totally focused on the sale of PetroLuxus products. We expect the sales of PetroLuxus products to continue to increase through the upcoming quarters, thereby establishing a firm financial foundation for the company to work from. Once this base has been established, we will begin selectively resuming other operations, but with a better understanding of the issues to give us an improved chance for success. Regardless of our current state of affairs, our management and employees are committed to the success of your company. Once again the Company realizes the success we seek is mutual with our shareholders and will not be possible without the vision of investors and support of shareholders like you. We will remain focused on attaining our marketing goals for PetroLuxus for the remainder of 2011, as we feel it will be our best year for revenue generation ever.
Special Message from Kurt Neubauer:
Many have probably wondered why Planet elected to take on these other technologies and challenges rather than just bringing PetroLuxus to market. The answer is that PetroLuxus was, at that time, still in testing and trials, and it seemed essential to create other more immediate revenue streams to slow down or stop share dilution through continued investment. This is the reason we went after these other opportunities. In an effort to minimize share dilution from these continued sales of equity to fund the Company, it was proposed to us immediate revenue streams could be created through these endeavors. Through the creation of Raptor Ventures to do Antimony mining in Bolivia or our previous acquisitions such as RADA Technologies or others, the driving force behind these projects was their expected capability to create immediate revenue streams for the Company allowing us to operate without further outside capital investment. That way any future capital investment could be used solely to expand our operations or to make acquisitions to expand our markets in the future. Obviously, this has not worked out for us. So, until solid revenue streams are established, we are concentrating on the sale of our core technology, PetroLuxus, and internal capital formation.
I would like to express one last thought. The ongoing litigation toward the Company and myself has created many distractions and consumed a great deal of my time not to mention the high stress levels it has created by all the false information placed on the internet. Only a few people are aware of the fact that in the summer of 2008, I underwent open-heart surgery having a quadruple bypass operation. Although my recovery has been complete except for a few additional pills I now take along with vitamin supplements, the stress of all the negative postings and the battering that has gone on has and continues to take its toll on me.
At this time, I want to regretfully announce that I will be stepping aside from Planet from the position as President, Chief Executive Officer and from the Board of Directors of the Company. The Company requires more attention and energy than I am prepared to give.
My last day of employment was April 15, 2011.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your support throughout the years. I have enjoyed building this company from the beginning to now. Mr. Enrique Salinas has been with Planet from its inception and I am very pleased that he has accepted the Company's appointment from me as the Company's new President and CEO. These changes took place, at a special Board meeting held on April 4th, 2011, when Mr. Salinas was also appointed to the Board of Directors. I wish Mr. Salinas all the best in his efforts to take the company to the next level and feel confident he is up to the task. I hope you will support his efforts to bring Planet into a full revenue generating company as you have supported my efforts to bring the company this far. So long and God Bless this Company, all who work here and all that have and are invested here.
That concludes this shareholder audio update. Please continue to look for upcoming news announcements as they develop in 2011.
The Company looks forward to announcing its next audio update and results. Keep in touch with our updates by viewing our website at www.planetresource.net. We are available to answer your queries and hope that you will send an email to us with your comments or questions. Please email your questions to us at investors@planetresource.net or call us at 281-213-5622. We are happy to answer your questions but keep in mind that our responses can only reflect that information that is already publicly available.
Thank you for your support. We appreciate you standing steadfast with the company and its employees. Signing off for the last time.
Regards,
The date of the announcement was today, 4/18. I found it on the Kitco.com site.
WOLV-OTCQB
WOLVERINE EXPLORATION ANNOUNCES FINANCING FOR CACHE RIVER DRILLING
Vancouver-Wolverine Exploration Inc. (“Wolverine”) announced today a proposed private
placement of up to 6,000,000 common shares at a price of US $0.05 per share for gross
proceeds of $300,000. The proceeds from the private placement will be used for the drill
program on Wolverine’s Cache River property scheduled to commence in early May and
general working capital.
The securities to be issued and sold in the private placement will not be registered under
the Securities Act of 1933 as amended (the “Act”), and may not be offered or sold in the
United States absent registration, or an applicable exemption from registration, under the
Act.
On behalf of the Board
Lee Costerd
President
For further information please contact:
Ronald Jones (778) 297-4409
mailto:investor@wolverineexplorationinc.com
http://www.wolverineexplorationinc.com/
Kalahari Greentech - Franklin Mining Announce Plan for Operating Agreement; Bolivia's Escala Mina I's Silver, Lead & Zinc Recovery
LA MESA, CA, Mar 30, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Kalahari Greentech, Inc (PINKSHEETS: KHGT) announces having negotiated a Joint Venture Agreement with Franklin Mining, Inc to establish a silver, lead and zinc recovery operation at Bolivia's Escala Mina I.
Franklin Mining, Inc has previously been granted rights for the exploration and exploitation of metals and minerals at the Escala Mina I by COMIBOL (National Mining Company of Bolivia). Franklin initially formed a joint-venture including COMIBOL and Cooperativa Minera "INTI" Ltda and established a mining operation with the completion of infrastructure and other restorations at the mine's center of operations and main tunnels. Kalahari Greentech, Inc, La Mesa, CA, had focused on the development, construction, and operation of wind and solar energy projects; this will be their first mining venture. Each company will share equally in joint-venture revenue distributions after expenses.
Terms of the joint-venture provides for Kalahari Greentech, Inc and Franklin Mining, Inc to be jointly and equally responsible for mining operations with each to provide various management services.
About The Escala Mine: Consisting of three separate mining applications, COMIBOL's Escala concession totals 2,000 hectares located in the Sud Lipez Province, near Bolivia's border with Argentina. Franklin Mining Bolivia's current contract is for the recovery of metals and minerals within a 500 hectare area known as Escala Mina I; proposals for the inclusion of Escala II and Escala III mining applications are currently before COMIBOL.
The original Escala Mine was established during Bolivia's Spanish colonial period and has been mined for lead, zinc, gold and silver. In 2007, Franklin Mining Bolivia negotiated an agreement with COMIBOL to resume operations at Escala Mina I and formed a joint-venture to include Cooperativa Minera "INTI" Ltda.
ABOUT KALAHARI GREENTECH, INC. Kalahari Greentech Inc. is an energy company focused on the use of Natural Resources of the Earth to produce revenues allowing the company to work on building a stronger planet by developing and implementing Green Technologies worldwide.
About Franklin Mining, Inc: Franklin Mining, Inc. has mining interests in the United States and Bolivia. Additional information is available at www.FranklinMining.com.
Safe Harbor Statement To the extent that statements in this press release are not strictly historical, including statements as to revenue projections, business strategy, outlook, objectives, future milestones, plans, intentions, goals, future financial conditions, future collaboration agreements, the success of the Company's development, events conditioned on stockholder or other approval, or otherwise as to future events, such statements are forward-looking, and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements contained in this release are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the statements made.
For further information, please visit our websites (http://kalahariint.com) or (www.FranklinMining.com) or contact our Investor Relations firm.
CONTACT:
Kalahari Greentech, Inc Investor Relations:
Contact:
619-667-2470
info@kalahariint.com
Web site: http://kalahariint.com/Home.html
CONTACT:
Investor Relations Inquiries
Atlanta Capital Partners, LLC
(404) 856-9157 Office
(866) 692-6847 Toll Free - U.S. & Canada
SOURCE: Kalahari Greentech, Inc.
CONTACT: mailto:info@kalahariint.com
http://kalahariint.com/Home.html
Is this a subsidiary of FMNJ?
Energy Management International, Inc. Acquires AM Oil Resources & Technology, Inc. to Obtain Significant Oil Recovery Capabilities
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011 8:05 AM
- GlobeNewswire
ENMI
0.0035 +0.0008
SAN ANTONIO, Feb 10, 2011 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Energy Management International, Inc. (ENMI) announces today that it has acquired AM Oil Resources & Technology, Inc., an oil recovery and technology firm that has proven, tested, and patented crude oil technology (www.amoilresources.com).
According to Howard Dunn, President, "This acquisition marks a significant milestone for our Company. Our goal in 2011 is to produce a significant amount of crude oil from our existing properties and to acquire oil properties that we believe will be capable of producing profitable quantities with this strategy. Technology is paramount in oil recovery. This acquisition will add significantly to the asset value of the Company and will prove to be an extremely profitable venture for our Company as it will allow us to reach our sales, production, and development goals."
According to Anthony Miller, CEO of AM Oil Resources & Technology, "Finally, after a challenging year, we have partnered with a firm that has a vision that aligns well with our objectives. We look forward to cultivating a strategic plan with our technology. This relationship will not only provide success to the firm, but to other producers who may want to utilize its capabilities."
About Energy Management International, Inc.: Energy Management International, Inc. (www.energymanagementinternational.com) is positioning itself to add North and South American oil and gas production, and enter into downstream processing design, build, and/or operating agreements in Paraguay, Bolivia, and Argentina.
The Energy Management International, Inc. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=8741
DISCLOSURES: "Safe Harbor" statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This press release contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risk and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the impact of competitive products, product demand, market acceptance risks, fluctuations in operating results, political risk and other risks detailed from time to time in Energy Management International, Inc.'s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks could cause Energy Management Internationals, Inc.'s actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, Energy Management International, Inc.
Here is the share data from Franklin's website:
Estimated Market Cap
$6,292,000 as of Sept 16, 2010
Outstanding Shares
62,920,000,000 as of Dec 31, 2009
Authorized Shares
100,010,000,000 as of Nov 16, 2009
Float (shares)
23,099,659,313 as of Dec 31, 2009
Number of Shareholders of Record
6,124 as of Sept 30, 2009
PRRY has delivered the 300 tons of antimony to the port in Chile - assays are being conducted - 10 days for results. Will help FMNJ too.
Antimony prices have just hit $14,000 per metric tonne for 99% antimony. This ore probably has about 35% antimony which means that they have about $1.47 million in antimony. They will receive less than half that because of the refining costs.
There is gold in the antimony maybe 12 grams per tonne. That could yield another $100,000.
For a company that has done almost everything wrong this, if true, could be a big turnaround.
Another Lawsuit Against Planet:
ROBERT ARIAS, JR.,
CASE NO.: 3:08 – cv – 00211
VS.
PLANET RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC.,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Robert Arias, Jr. (“Arias” or “Plaintiff”), complaining of
Planet Resource Recovery, Inc. (“PRR” or “Defendant”), and for cause of action would
respectfully show unto the Court the following:
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees,
expert witness fees, taxable costs of court, pre-judgment and post judgment interest
sustained by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s acts.
2. Plaintiff Arias entered agreements with Defendant PRR related to the sale
of his company, RADA Technologies, Inc. (“RADA”). Soon after the sale was
completed, Arias learned that PRR had made several material and false representations to him regarding its financial stability, representations made for the sole purpose of
inducing Arias to sell RADA to PRR so that it could gain access to RADA bank accounts
and credit lines and use them to pay its mounting debt and expenses.
3. In addition, PRR breached certain promises it made to Arias by, among
other things, refusing to pay debts of RADA that Arias had personally guaranteed.
4. Also, without Arias’ knowledge or permission, PRR submitted a credit
application to a credit card company in Arias’ name, received a credit card, used the
credit to pay the electricity bill at its leased offices, and defaulted on the payments.
II.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Arias is an individual, a resident of Brazoria County, Texas and
citizen of the State of Texas.
6. Defendant Planet Resource Recovery, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, conducts business in the State of Texas on
an ongoing and systematic basis and has offices in Pearland, Brazoria County, Texas.
Defendant maintains an agent for receiving service of process in the State of Texas, and
may be served with citation by serving its registered agent for service of process, Kurt E.
Neubauer, who may be served at 10101 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300, Houston, TX
77074-1110, or wherever he may be found, a true copy of the summons with a copy of
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Complaint attached thereto, pursuant to the applicable
rules of procedure.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1332(a) as there is complete diversity of citizenship amongst the parties and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). A
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this
District and Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
IV.
FACTS
9. PRR describes itself as a “Petrochemical/Oil Services company that has
developed a proprietary, environmentally friendly chemical that dislodges hydrocarbons
in practically all natural and man-made environments.”
10. RADA is an engineering and design based company that provides
operational and equipment solutions to its clients in the oil and gas industry.
11. In April 2007, Arias and PRR entered formal negotiations for PRR to
purchase Arias’ company, RADA.
12. PRR represented to Arias that its acquisition of RADA was “ideal…for
both parties” and that their “joint efforts [would] provide much needed solutions to the
industry.”
13. PRR represented to Arias that it was a profitable business experiencing
significant growth.
14. PRR represented to Arias that it had huge deals in the works with parties
all over the world, including but not limited to, Russia and Canada.
15. PRR represented to Arias that it had investors clamoring to buy an
ownership interest in it.
16. PRR represented to Arias that it was poised to have its stock listed on one
of the major markets.
17. PRR represented to Arias that it had surplus capital to invest in and grow
RADA.
18. At the time PRR was making these representations to Arias, PRR was in
serious financial distress and desperate to find money, any money, to stay in business.
19. Arias had no idea PRR was struggling financially and was convinced,
based on the material and false representations of PRR, that it was a financially strong
and valuable company.
20. Because he had been convinced by PRR that it was a financially strong
and valuable company, Arias agreed to be compensated for the sale of his ownership
portion of RADA with PRR restricted stock.
21. As part of the sale, PRR also agreed to service RADA debt that had been
personally guaranteed by Arias.
22. The sale was consummated in July 2007.
23. In the weeks and months that followed, as Arias began to work more
closely with PRR, he began to realize that PRR was cash-strapped and there was no
legitimate evidence of the purported investors or market upgrade touted by PRR.
24. PRR defaulted on its promise to pay the debts of RADA that had been
guaranteed by Arias, as agreed.
25. Arias learned that PRR had defaulted on its payments to his brother-in-law
for his ownership interest in RADA.
26. Arias learned that PRR had opened a credit card account in his name, used
the credit card up to its limit for such things as the company’s electric bill, and defaulted.
Arias learned about the credit card when the issuer called his home seeking payment.
27. It had also been agreed that Arias would stay on and run RADA for a
salary.
28. Prior to its purchase by PRR, RADA had been a successful business,
valued at nearly $300,000, and growing.
29. However, since it has purchased RADA, PRR emptied its bank account,
defaulted on its credit obligations and added more credit, to the point that Arias could not
sustain RADA’s business.
30. At one point, over the course of twelve (12) days, PRR wrote checks to
itself from the RADA bank account in the amounts of $15,000, $4,500 and $15,000 –
effectively crippling RADA to the point that it could no longer conduct business.
31. When Arias confronted PRR about its misrepresentations, fraud, breach of
agreements and the pilfering of RADA’s bank account, PRR’s response was to cease
communicating with him.
32. As a result of PRR’s conduct, Arias lost a valuable company, had his
personal credit ruined, was the victim of credit card fraud and left holding the essentially
worthless stock of PRR.
V. COUNT I: FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully
stated herein.
34. PRR fraudulently induced Arias to sell his ownership interest in RADA.
35. PRR made multiple false and material representations to Arias regarding,
but not limited to, the financial standing of PRR, investor interest in PRR, the reasons
why PRR wanted access to RADA and market recognition of PRR, in order to induce
Arias to sell his ownership in RADA and accept its worthless stock in payment.
36. The above-referenced representations made by PRR were material.
37. The above-representations made by PRR were false.
38. When PRR made the representations, it knew they were false. PRR made
these representations with the intent that Arias act upon them.
39. Arias relied on PRR’s representations. PRR’s multiple, material, false
representations to Arias caused him significant injury.
40. PRR’s acts were in violation of Texas law.
41. PRR’s acts were willful and intentional.
42. As a direct result of PRR’s acts, Arias suffers damages for which
Defendant is liable.
VI.
COUNT II: BREACH OF CONTRACT
43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully
stated herein.
44. Arias now sues PRR for damages resulting from its breach of the
agreements between himself and PRR, as well as pre-judgment interest owing at the rate
allowed by law, until the date of Judgment.
45. The agreement between Arias and PRR that PRR pay the debts of RADA
that are personally guaranteed by Arias is a valid, enforceable contract.
46. Arias has standing to sue PRR for breach of the contract.
47. Arias performed or attempted to perform his contractual obligations.
48. PRR breached the contract by not paying the RADA creditors whom Arias
had provided a personal guarantee.
49. PRR’s breach has caused Arias additional substantial financial injury.
50. Arias has employed the undersigned attorneys to represent him in the
filing of this suit and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their services for which
amount Arias sues. Pursuant to V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code §38.001,
Here is Planet's Response to Inspar and their counterclaims:
http://www.planetresource.net/pdf/7-main.pdf
Planet's Response to Inspar
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
(HOUSTON DIVISION)
KENT WEISENBERG and
INSPAR FIELD SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PLANET RESOURCES RECOVERY,
INC. and KURT NEUBAUER,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No.4:10-cv-05086
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN A REQUIRED PARTY
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE STAYING PROCEEDINGS
AND COMPELLING MEDIATION
Defendants file this motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit for failure to join a required party,
as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7); to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and
to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compelling mediation.
Introduction
1.
(Inspar) (together, Plaintiffs). Defendants are Planet Resources Recovery, Inc. (Planet) and Kurt
Neubauer (Neubauer) (together, Defendants).
2.
Securities Law, Violation of Texas Securities Law, Rescission, Violation of 27.01 of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, Common Law Fraud, and Fraud in the Inducement. Plaintiffs’
standing to file such claims seems tenuous at best.
3.
Purchase Agreement with the Planet. This Asset Purchase Agreement, which is attached hereto
Plaintiffs are Kent Weisenberg (Weisenberg) and Inspar Field Services, LLC
On December 20, 2010, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for Violation of Federal
On or about April 15, 2010, Inspar and Weisenberg entered into an Asset
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 2 of 12
as Exhibit A, was for the purchase of certain assets of the Seller, Inspar and Weisenberg. In
exchange for these assets, Plaintiffs received nearly 18 million shares of stock, which was
distributed to the following individuals: Dudley Primeaux, Emil Pena, John Nixon, Barbara A.
Hoekstra Revocable Trust, Mark Alan Ragen, Sheila M. Wales, and Kent Weisenberg, plus
approximately $1 million in working capital contribution for its technology. (At the time of
contract negotiations the parties estimated $400,000 would be needed in working capital instead
of stating a figure in the letter of intent; Weisenberg requested the figure be removed because he
did not want there to be a ceiling on the working capital contribution.) The Asset Purchase
Agreement contains a mediation clause.
Agreement. Weisenberg received 15 million shares, but nearly three million additional shares
were given as consideration to the absent parties. Inspar and Weisenberg want their technology
back but want to keep a significant portion of what was paid for it. Since Inspar and Weisenberg
do not have all of what was paid for the technology, necessary parties are missing. Plaintiffs’
Original Complaint does not explain why they are entitled to rescission without returning the full
consideration. They want to keep almost 3 million shares for friends and relatives and over one
million dollars.
4.
Hoekstra Revocable Trust, Mark Alan Ragen, and Sheila M. Wales are required for the
resolution of Plaintiffs’ suit; therefore, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit.
5.
$1,116,181.24 in working capital. Plaintiffs have not disclosed where the working capital was
distributed. These unknown parties are required for the resolution of Plaintiffs’ suit but cannot
be joined; therefore, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s suit. At least some of the money was
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Now Inspar wants to rescind the Asset Purchase
The absent parties, Dudley Primeaux, Emil Pena, John Nixon, Barbara A.
Unknown Required Parties. Defendants provided Plaintiffs with approximately
Page 2 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 3 of 12
converted by Weisenberg. Weisenberg negotiated the price for a company vehicle purchased by
Planet, allegedly for $5500.00 but in reality for $3500.00 secretly pocketing the difference. It
will require extensive discovery to determine what portion of the million dollars of Planet funds
was misappropriately directed by Weisenberg.
6.
Defendants and Plaintiffs. If Inspar or Weisenberg relied on his representations, which is not
reflected in the Original Complaint, and if his representations to Inspar and/or Planet were not
true in all respects, which is also not reflected in the Original Complaint, such representations
were not authorized and as such Williams would be a necessary party. The relationship between
Williams, Inspar, and Weisenberg will have to be explained during discovery. The failure to
even name him in the original petition while citing pages of irrelevant opinions suggests a
concealed relationship.
7.
be granted. Therefore, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit.
8.
made claims of criminal conduct they know are not true, and that they have no standing to raise.
They have claimed there are pending criminal complaints but have not referenced these in any
way to the give the defendants a clue as where they are or what they are. On the face the
allegations are naked personal attaches unrelated to any legitimate issue in the lawsuit. Their
purpose is not the litigation of grievances – they have no intention of going to trial. Their
purpose has been to use this Court to batter the stock of Planet, hoping to hide behind the
pleadings, and gain a negotiating advantage with an unfairly injured party.
Tim Williams (Williams) handled virtually all of the negotiations between
In their Original Complaint, Plaintiffs do not state a claim upon which relief can
Plaintiffs have filed a suit for rescission, which is defective on its face. They have
Argument
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Page 3 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 4 of 12
Dismissal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)
9.
absent party is required for the suit to proceed, (2) that party cannot be joined, and (3) the suit
cannot proceed in equity and good conscience without that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), (b).
10.
suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). To proceed without the absent party would impair or impede
the absent party’s ability to protect its interests in the suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i);
Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1155
(9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs are seeking to recover all the consideration provided in connection
with the sales transaction including but not limited to all of the intellectual property, patents,
trade secrets and the like that were transferred to Defendants. In exchange for the acquisition of
Inspar, Defendants distributed 15 million shares of common stock to Plaintiff Weisenberg and
nearly three million shares of common stock to the following: Dudley Primeaux, Emil Pena,
John Nixon, Barbara A. Hoekstra Revocable Trust, Mark Alan Ragen, and Sheila M. Wales.
The stock of the individuals cannot be ordered returned if the owners are not parties. In
connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement a letter of intent was signed.
provided over $1 million of working capital. When the working capital was provided it was
distributed to numerous unknown individuals and entities. These unknown entities must be
joined in order to protect their interest in the contract.
11.
seeking to have the contract rescinded must offer to give back all of the benefits he or she
received. Here, Plaintiffs are asking the Court to perform inequity on its face. If Plaintiffs want
to rescind the contract all beneficiaries to the contract are required parties.
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
The court should dismiss a suit for failure to join an absent party when (1) the
The absent party has a legally protected interest related to the subject matter of the
Defendants
When a party seeks rescission it is to be applied equally. In rescission the party
Page 4 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 5 of 12
12.
that “[a] non-party to a commercial contract ordinarily is not a necessary party to the
adjudication of the rights under the contract.” See ConnTech Dev. Co. v. Univ. of Conn. Educ.
Props., 102 F.3d 677, 682 (2d Cir.1996). The necessary parties to this contract did not have
signature authority but they do have an equitable right that must be protected and they received
fruits of the contract.
Persons or entities that possess disputed fruits of a contract must be joined under
Rule 19(a). No procedural principle is more deeply imbedded in the common law
than that, in an action to set aside a lease or a contract, all parties who may be
affected by the determination of the action are indispensable.
In re United States ex rel. Hall, 825 F. Supp. 1422, 1429-30 (D. Minn. 1993), aff’d, 27 F.3d 572
(8th Cir. 1994). Joinder is necessary in this case because without it complete relief cannot be
accorded among the already-named parties.
13.
be identified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1); see Hood ex rel. Miss. v. City of Memphis, 570 F.3d 625,
631-32 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1319 (2010); Glancy v. Taubman Ctrs., Inc., 373
F.3d 656, 672 (6th Cir. 2004); Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of Kickapoo Reservation in Kan. v.
Babbitt, 43 F.3d 1491, 1495-96 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
distributed to unknown individuals or entities. Until these individuals or entities are identified it
cannot be established whether or not the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction or personal
jurisdiction.
14.
provisions in the judgment, the shaping of relief, or any other measure available to the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)(2); Republic of Phillipines v. Pimental, 553 U.S. 851, 128 S. Ct. 2180,
2192 (2008); Schlumberger Indus., Inc. v. Nat’l Sur. Corp., 36 F.3d 1274, 1287-88 (4th Cir.
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
The general rule regarding a Rule 12(b)(7) motion when a contract is involved is
Some of the absent parties cannot be joined in the litigation because they cannot
The working capital contribution was
The prejudice cannot be lessened or avoided by the insertion of protective
Page 5 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 6 of 12
1994); Pit River Home & Agric. Co-op. Ass’n v. United States, 30 F.3d 1088, 1101 (9th Cir.
1994).
15.
P. 19(b)(3); Republic of the Phillipines, 128 S. Ct. at 2193; Schlumberger, 36 F.3d at 1287-88;
Pit River, 30 F.3d at 1101-02.
16.
remedy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)(4); Republic of the Phillipines, 128 S. Ct. at 2193; Schlumberger,
36 F.3d at 1287-88; see Pit River, 30 F.3d at 1102-03. Defendants are happy to mutually rescind
the contract; however, Defendants are not willing to give up any right to litigate the intentional
destruction of the fair market value of Planet’s stock and the loss of business opportunities
caused by the intentional, personal attacks by Weisenberg. These claims are included in the
Answer and Counterclaim.
Any judgment rendered without the absent party will be inadequate. Fed. R. Civ.
If the Court dismisses the suit for nonjoinder, Plaintiffs will still have an adequate
Dismissal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
17.
relief can be granted if the complaint does not provide fair notice of the claim and does not state
factual allegations showing that the right to relief is plausible. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S.
___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 & n.3
(2007). The plaintiffs have filed multiple claims that require particularity.
18.
securities law claim under the wrong statute—§ 78u-4(b)(2), instead of § 78j. Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, provides in pertinent part:
(b) Requirements for securities fraud actions
(1) Misleading statements and omissions
The Court has authority to dismiss a suit for failure to state a claim upon which
Plaintiffs’ federal securities law claims: Plaintiffs have brought their federal
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Page 6 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 7 of 12
In any private action arising under this chapter in which the plaintiff alleges that
the defendant—
(A) made an untrue statement of a material fact; or
(B) omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
made, in the light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading;
the complaint shall specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the
reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation
regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the
complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed.
(2) Required state of mind
In any private action arising under this chapter in which the plaintiff may recover
money damages only on proof that the defendant acted with a particular state of
mind, the complaint shall, with respect to each act or omission alleged to violate
this chapter, state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
defendant acted with the required state of mind.
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1), (2) (emphasis added). Because the PSLRA does not give rise to a cause
of action, Plaintiffs’ federal securities law claims should be dismissed.
19.
commonly referred to as § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and its rule counterpart, which
is Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Section 10(b) generally prohibits deception in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Under the statute, it is unlawful “[t]o use or
employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security … any manipulative or deceptive
device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may
prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” 15
U.S.C. § 78j(b). Rule 10b-5 proscribes “mak[ing] any untrue statement of a material fact or to
omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
20.
connection with the purchase or sale of securities, (1) a misstatement or an omission, (2) of a
material fact, (3) scienter, (4) reliance, (5) proximately causation, (6) injury. R2 Invs. LDC v.
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
The cause of action for a securities fraud action is stated under 15 U.S.C. § 78j,
In order to state a claim for fraud under section 78j, the plaintiff must allege, in
Page 7 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 8 of 12
Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 2005). These elements must be pleaded with particularity.
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1); see Flaherty v. Crumrine Preferred Income Fund, Inc., 565 F.3d 200,
206-07 (5th Cir. 2009) (stating that the heightened pleading requirement of Rule 9(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is incorporated into the pleading standard for federal securities
fraud claims). Further, the plaintiff must allege scienter. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2). Finally, the
plaintiff must allege an economic loss and loss causation in the complaint. Dura Pharms., Inc. v.
Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005). Accordingly, the plaintiff must “specify the statements contended
to be fraudulent, identify the speaker, state when and where the statements were made, and
explain why the statements were fraudulent.” Id. at 207.
21.
defraud or that severe recklessness in which the danger of misleading buyers or sellers is either
known to the defendant or is so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it.” R2 Invs.
LDC, 401 F.3d at 643. The inference of scienter must ultimately be “cogent and compelling,”
not merely “reasonable” or “permissible.” Flaherty, 565 F.3d at 208. Plaintiffs’ Original
Complaint lacks the required particularity and scienter requirements.
22.
arising under this chapter, the court shall, on the motion of any defendant, dismiss the complaint
if the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) are not met.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(A). Because
the requirements of the PSLRA are not met in Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint, the Court should
dismiss the federal securities law cause of action.
23.
Securities Act, under which a claim is made in the Original Complaint, provides:
Scienter, in the securities fraud context, is “an intent to deceive, manipulate, or
The PSLRA explicitly provides for a motion to dismiss: “In any private action
Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of Texas Securities Act: The section of the Texas
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Page 8 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 9 of 12
A person who offers or sells a security (whether or not the security or transaction
is exempt under Section 5 or 6 of this Act) by means of an untrue statement of a
material fact or an omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not
misleading, is liable to the person buying the security from him, who may sue
either at law or in equity for rescission, or for damages if the buyer no longer
owns the security. However, a person is not liable if he sustains the burden of
proof that either (a) the buyer knew of the untruth or omission or (b) he (the
offeror or seller) did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not
have known, of the untruth or omission. The issuer of the security (other than a
government issuer identified in Section 5M) is not entitled to the defense in clause
(b) with respect to an untruth or omission (i) in a prospectus required in
connection with a registration statement under Section 7A, 7B, or 7C, or (ii) in a
writing prepared and delivered by the issuer in the sale of a security.
Tex. Civ. Rev. Stat. art. 581-33(A)(2). “Although intent or scienter is not an element of a claim
under article 581-33 for an untrue statement of an existing fact, … intent or scienter is an
element of a claim under article 581-33 for an untrue promise of future performance.” Dorsey v.
Portfolio Equities Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 344 n.5. (5th Cir. 2008). As a general matter,
to prevail under art. 581-33(A)(2), a plaintiff must show that the defendant
seller in offering or selling a security made an untrue statement of material fact or
an omission of material fact that was essential to make the statement not
misleading.
A
misrepresentation
or
omission
is
“material if there is a substantial likelihood that proper disclosure would have
been viewed by a reasonable investor as significantly altering the total mix of
information made available.… In other words, the issue is whether a reasonable
investor would consider the information important in deciding whether to invest.”
The investor/buyer has no duty to perform due diligence nor to discover the truth
by exercising ordinary care.
In re Enron Corp. Sec., 235 F. Supp. 2d 549, 567 (S.D. Tex. 2002). These elements must be
alleged with particularity. Dorsey, 540 F.3d at 344. “If the buyer still owns the securities at
issue, rescission is the sole remedy available; only if he has sold the securities, may he obtain
money damages.” In re Enron, 235 F. Supp. 2d at 567-68. See also Summers v. WellTech, Inc.,
935 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex. App.—1st Dist. [Houston] 1996) (“Money damages are available for
a buyer only when the buyer no longer owns the securities in question, whereas rescission is
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Page 9 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 10 of 12
available to the buyer when the buyer still owns the stock.”). Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs seek
damages under the Texas Securities Act, their claim for damages must be dismissed; Plaintiffs
have not stated a claim under the Act, in any event, because their Complaint does not allege
statements of material fact.
24.
any false or misleading disclosures made by Defendant. Plaintiffs’ petition is full of opinions,
speculations, and false statements, without information as to the specific statements that were
relied upon. Without this information, Defendants cannot properly defend the allegations. Rule
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that in all allegations of fraud, the
circumstances constituting the fraud must be stated with particularity. Plaintiffs have failed to
meet this requirement. The pleading must be sufficiently particular to serve the three goals of
Rule 9(b), which are (1) to provide a defendant with fair notice of the claims against him; (2) to
protect a defendant from harm to his reputation or goodwill by unfounded allegations of fraud;
and (3) to reduce the number of strike suits. See DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus., Inc.,
822 F.2d 1242, 1247 (2d Cir. 1987); O'Brien v. Price Waterhouse, 740 F. Supp. 276, 279
(S.D.N.Y.1990), aff’d, 936 F.2d 674 (2d Cir. 1991).
Plaintiffs have also pleaded claims for fraud but have not specifically identified
Dismissal and Compelling Mediation
25.
(See ¶¶ 45-48 of Exhibit A, attached hereto.) There has been no mediation or attempt to mediate.
26.
and Defendants entered a contract for the sale of specific assets of Plaintiffs. The parties agreed
that “In the event a dispute arises out of or in connection with this Agreement, the Parties will
attempt to resolve the dispute through friendly consultation. If the dispute is not resolved within
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Plaintiffs are suing under a contract that requires mediation prior to filing a suit.
Plaintiffs have violated the binding and enforceable mediation clause. Plaintiffs
Page 10 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 11 of 12
a reasonable period, then any or all outstanding issues between the parties relating to this
Agreement will be first submitted to a neutral, non-binding mediation.” (Id.) By signing the
contract both parties agreed to first mediate. There has been no attempt at mediation. Therefore,
the Court should dismiss the Original Complaint and issue an order compelling mediation. In the
alternative, the Court should stay the present proceedings pending mediation.
Conclusion
27.
order dismissing the Original Complaint in its entirety; or, in the alternative, if the Court
determines that the parties are necessary and can be served, ordering that the parties be identified
and joined; or, in the alternative, dismissing the Original Complaint and compelling mediation;
or, in the alternative, compelling mediation and staying the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons Defendants respectfully requests this Court to enter an
Respectfully submitted on January 20, 2011,
MICHAEL LOUIS MINNS, P.L.C.
/s/ Ashley Blair Arnett
Michael Louis Minns
State Bar No. 14184300
Rain Levy Minns
State Bar No. 24034581
Ashley Blair Arnett
State Bar No. 24064833
9119 S. Gessner, Suite 1
Houston, Texas 77074
Telephone: (713) 777-0772
Telecopy: (713) 777-0453
Counsel for Defendants Plant Resource Recovery,
Inc. and Kurt Neubauer
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Page 11 of 12
Case 4:10-cv-05086 Document 6
Filed in TXSD on 01/20/11 Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this the 20th day of January 2011, a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing instrument was served via e-filing upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Ashley Blair Arnett
Ashley Blair Arnett
D’S RULE 12 MOTION
Page 12 of 12
Thank you RealityCheck2 for a great review of the financial history of this company.
In spite of all the problems I am still an investor in this company. I became involved when they were still called American BioDiesel.
I have hope for their Bolivian mining business.
Did anyone else see that today after the market had closed at 4 PM that an order was executed at 4:03 PM for 400,000 shares at $.097?
Who is buying on the quiet in the after hours?
THIS COULD BE WORTH $500,000 PER MONTH!
DJIA: 11,235.61 +229.59 (2.09%) | NASDAQ: 2,554.97 +56.74 (2.27%) | S&P 500: 1,204.96 +24.41 (2.07%) —Markets close in 4 hrs 5 mins
Print Format Change Text Size:
Default text sizeA Larger text sizeA Largest text sizeA
Planet Resource's Raptor Ventures, LLC Enters into Antimony Ore and Gold Sales Contract
BY PR Newswire
— 10:55 AM ET 12/01/2010
HOUSTON, Dec. 1, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- Planet Resource Recovery, Inc. (PRRY) is pleased to announce that the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Raptor Ventures, LLC has executed an Antimony Ore Sales Contract with a Chinese entity. Raptor Ventures will deliver to the buyer's agent in Chile 300 Metric Tons of Antimony raw ore to be assayed for final value of Antimony Ore.
Raptor Ventures, LLC commenced operations at its Sorpresa Antimony mine on September 15, 2010. Since commencement of the operation, Raptor has been ramping up production on a weekly basis. This contract represents production to date at the Sorpresa mine. The company anticipates that once the monthly target is attained, this kind of contract will become a monthly sales event.
In addition to the Antimony Ore value, this sales contract may have additional value due to gold content that has been assayed in the production to date. This value will be determined at the processing facility when the Antimony Ore is processed and refined.
CEO Kurt E. Neubauer, Planet stated, "Our goal in 2010 was to commence the generation of considerable sales from our business units and technologies. This contract represents that we are progressing on our goals. I am very proud of our staff in Bolivia. This contract and additional Antimony production, along with the sales being generated with the sale of our PetroLuxus products is a great wrap up of our fourth quarter and gives us a great future in 2011 to grow our top line."
There are rumors going around the internet that Planet is able to go ahead with their antimony sales and shipment from their Bolivian mines.
They needed a minimum of $50,000 to do that so they must have come up with the money somewhere.
The sale of their first 300 tonnes should net them about $500,000.
That is great news Bio! Please keep dreaming.
Waiting for part 2.
Didn't LBSR give away 1 or 2 of these 6 or 7 anomalies when they sold the 23 square miles to NAK. Don't they really have 4 or 5 now?