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.
Insiders, like the CEO and Chairman, always have access to material, non-public information. But I don't see why they would be prevented from purchasing shares directly from the company in a private placement based on prevailing market prices. Trading in public markets, with a counterparty that does not have the same information, would be problematic.
Of course. Why else would I continue to invest (not just hold) after so many years!
lol..... yeah, JB sure has (had) a sales side.
'Bisbee for example, when first exposed by mining, encountered copper values between 5% and 30%... While we do not know until drilling whether mineralized rock of this grade will be located in places at Hay Mountain, there is no reason that this is not a possibility.'
Drilling was always just around the corner...
This is always fun. JB would often compare the footprint of Hay Mountain to Bingham Canyon. That’s 19m tons of copper. Or $170b at today’s prices. Over 100+ year mine life...
Perhaps with news, it will be...
I'd be very surprised if this was not accompanied by significant news.
We shall see.
The offer remains open until $2M is raised or 2 months pass. Nothing said about putting funds in escrow and returning the money if a certain threshold is not met. There is no Securities Act or Exchange Act rules saying that if you want to raise 'up to' a certain amount, then you MUST raise that amount or return any previously raised proceeds.
To be perfectly clear:"When a company states that want to raise X amount in a set time period, that makes it a closed/all-or-nothing offering." = FALSE.
"Director Brett Gross will be working to improve the Company’s structure to enhance long term stability and attractiveness to all prospective investors. This will include, in addition to other things, a succession plan for critical and key employees. A corporation, as an entity with a legally perpetual life, dictates such succession planning to assure long term company strength, stability and sustainability. While there are no current concerns of any critical or key employee becoming unable to perform his or her duties, prudent corporate policy demands planning for the duration of the corporation’s existence. This includes succession planning for positions essential to seamless corporate continuity." -NR Mon Jan 12, 2015.
Yeah - I expected the notice of effectiveness to come this week. Possible they had comments that pushed this back. We shall see (eventually!).
Or perhaps you should take the time to meet with JB and tour the area. I would imagine that JB would enjoy discussing all of your questions with you.
I am. VP is a great guy. Very knowledgeable.
If the SEC doesn't have comments, the registration statement is effective 20 days from filing. No "inside info" just counting the days. As it turns out, Wed (not Tues) is the 20th day. So I didn't estimate accurately.
And I doubt the SEC will have any comments because there were very few changes to the filing: reducing by 100M the size of the offering and reflecting the trading on the OTCBB are the two biggest changes. But we shall see.
Appreciate you going the extra mile, MAM. Hope you enjoyed the holiday.
That would be over a period where most explorers have gone under completely, FYI.
JB is certainly not w/out error. But if the EPA hadn't targeted Pebble for destruction, then the Big Chunk claims likely would have served us quite well. Instead, NAK freaked out and called the loan.
If Fukashima hadn't occurred, we'd have a radically different uranium market.
And copper and other metals are at cyclical lows.
All the majors have radically slashed capex and exploration activities.
Financing for explorers is the worst it’s been in decades.
None of this is to say that different moves at different times might have had positive, game-changing effects. Certainly the option issuance that triggered the law suit was a disaster (though it is worth noting that LBSR's lawyers should have been aware of that provision in the warrants). But overall, there are a lot macro influences that have worked against the company outside of management’s control. I think that is important for context, too.
You should take the opportunity to send questions to Jim to address in his next interview. Email to info@libertystaruranium.com. It would be interesting to hear Jim comment on previous exploration activities in the area and how it has informed his current view of the geology.
My opinion is that NAK signed that letter agreement w/out real intent of putting in $10M to develop the Big Chunk claims. I think they merely wanted (i) our claims not to fall into the hands of vulture funds and (ii) LBSR to sit idly by and not conduct drilling which might upset their precarious fight to get the mine permitted. When we decided to drill, the loan got called. Perhaps there isn't bad blood b/w JB and RT, but I wouldn't think either would be itching to do another deal w/ the other. But what do I know? (Not much!)
Yeah, also I believe Mr. Gross has put in a substantial amount of money here. Natural for him to want to assume a level of leadership.
I believe succession planning had also been mentioned at one point. Probably makes sense on a few levels to have someone in addition to Jim be prepared to lead the company.
An agreement to sell shares will be dilutive to shareholders? Thanks, Captain Obvious. Good sleuthing.
Hoodwinked? No. What part of "speculative resource investment" did you fail to understand? Where you see fraud and dangling carrots, I see an extraordinary geologist and his team constantly trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Even in the best environment, exploration companies are extremely risky. Meaning you stand a substantial likelihood of losing your investment. That risk is not merely due to the charlatans that operate in this space, but due to the fact that - as Rick Rule has pointed out on a number of occasions - as a sector explorers are negative equity. They bleed money. They sell shares in the hopes that they can find suitable partners to develop their properties. And to compound what is already a risky enterprise, we've been caught in a historic downturn for funding.
It appears that metals - copper in particular - will turn around in the next few years, hopefully by 2017. I hope that we can weather the storm until then and will do what I can to support a company that I am both financially and - have to admit - emotionally invested in. I like these people. And the fact that this company may not survive doesn't make the LBSR crew responsible, let alone evil, criminal or deceitful as you and others like to bloviate.
Maybe. Most explorers have been washed away in the past few years. It is a testament to JB that we still have hope. But don't let me interrupt the pity party.
Really? You typically lend $30K at 0% to a company you no longer want to be part of? And increase your equity stake to 40M-ish shares?
"Mr. Gross is a longtime LBSR shareholder dating from the first year of its founding and helped fund the Hay Mountain ZTEM survey last year" - http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141020006204/en/Engineer-Attorney-Brett-Gross-Named-Liberty-Star-Board#.VWhcjs9ViRA
And the S1 that was filed showed him owning 24,440,000 shares (including 6M+ that are available via warrant exercise).
Incorrect. Tax basis does not equal ownership percentage. Parties are free to structure their percentage interests however they want. You just have to tailor the tax provisions to the extent that one party contributes cash in a manner that is disproportionate to the ownership percentages.
No, but the funding has to be at the LLC level. If they wanted to - over and above the project funding - buy LBSR equity, they would be free to do so. But likely if you're buying the project, you want to own that in an undiluted fashion. Buying LBSR equity would only be for purposes of trying to participate in LBSR's other projects.
If you recall, LBSR formed an LLC to serve as the project funding vehicle. So potential funding partners would get their ownership percentage at that level, not as shareholders of LBSR.
Per the last 10K/A: "As of April 21, 2014, $186,480 had been converted into shares of our Common stock pursuant to the conversion terms of the agreement." That note was in favor of JMJ Financial. So I think we know where the 100M+ shares have gone and who is pounding this pps into the dirt, as is a convertible lender's right. Unfortunately, there seems to be about $66K left on that note, if my napkin math is correct.
Next paycheck, I'm buying.
Agreed. Well put.
"We are told here almost daily that investors will be lining up 20 deep with their checkbooks once they see the "science" at Hay Mountain."
Please point to one such post.
Entity already established and ready for funding: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/liberty-star-announces-wholly-owned-143000590.html
Could be that before any Phase 1 financing is announced, funders want to make sure that the entity actually holds all the claims and IP necessary/required.
And you think Genesis funded these prior expenditures on our behalf? Because that is what a loan is. Rather, under the deal proposed, they are merely compensating us for OUR OWN past expenditures and so that money will absolutely be available to us to spend as we see fit.
Funny. I just did the same thing. Plenty more examples out there. As expected, a pretty standard disclosure item to include in exploration company risk factors.
If every risk section portrayed a company's actual expectations, every public company would be bankrupt. That section is meant to be worst case. But you probably know this...
In the statement "without drilling or blasting" he is referring to the drilling required to conduct blasting, not to discover and define an ore body. This is quite clear to those who (unlike me) know something about surface mining. For instance, take a look at promotional materials for the leveler that expressly make this point ("No Vertical Drills"):
http://www2.vermeer.com/vermeer/documents/1/826/Rock_Excavation_0110.pdf
It is also made abundantly clear if you read just two sentences later where he states: "Nothing is definite until drills define such an [near surface] oxide mineral body..."
But, uh, good luck, pal.
Not only that, but one is also a long time holder. Think he might be motivated for LBSR to secure funding? I'd think so. This is a good opportunity.