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.
You misuse the term "merits of the case". Merely having a factual dispute - as all lawsuits have - has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a case is meritorious.
Dismissing a motion for summary judgment is not ruling "on the merits of the case" as you assert. It is merely a determination by the judge that there are facts in dispute for a jury to sort out. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks. I am still here. I never left. I am just quietly waiting for LBSR to realize its potential - like so many other longs.
ElisComing, you are correct in your assessment.
If the judge does not grant LBSR's motion for summary judgement (SJ), the sky will not fall. As a general rule, defendants routinely file a motion for SJ and, more often than not, the motion fails. Why? Because if there is any doubt whatsoever about the facts, the judge will let the case go forward. Judges are usually reluctant to deny plaintiffs their day in court.
Bottom line: Failure to get a SJ does not mean that LBSR won't prevail on the merits and it certainly should not cause one to sell.
K9, Thanks.
The usual tools and equipment required to carry out mineral exploration in the Arizona environment.
Ontherise,
I want to see some solid results as much as you do, but that is another issue. You missed the point of the post.
Ontherise,
You note that there is a lot of speculation regarding Mr. Liang's promotion. You then condemn all this speculation about the promotion as being "blown way out of proportion". You offer nothing to back up your opinion other than the lackluster stock performance after the Vollmer hiring.
But other bloggers have posted sound reasons why they think LL's promotion is significant. Your post, however, offers no rebuttal of those reasons...just your own speculation about it meaning "nothing".
There is irony here. It seems that you yourself are engaging in the very same speculation that you condemn.
SGR, you posted that
The SRK report is now complete
Yang2 You make an excellent point. This "discovery" may be the very reason why SRK's final report was not completed within the expected 30 day time frame.
More likely than not, SRK's final report may be in LBSR's hands shortly.
The final draft was completed on schedule
anyone else have opinion on this timeline?
JB could, in fact, get the report within the 30 day period he announced, but not release it the day he gets it. Maybe the board wants to study it first before making it public.
Remember, the SEC allows a company 4 business days before the company is required to disclose the existence of a material event (such as this report) to shareholders.
So, back to LBSR pps... No I don't think it's affected by today's commodity price at ALL, but it's always fun to dream
Share price is dependant (sic) on whether or not LBSR can turn a profit
Huh? Not sure it's a wait and see at this point. And would not like to assume anything.
I agree completely. That is why I personally am in the "we need patience" camp. While many crave positive news next week, we should all temper our expectations. These things do take time.
Let's say there was a meeting of minds during his trip. He couldn't sign anything without approval from the board. That would/will take a meeting. I doubt conference calls and faxes would suffice, especially give the breadth of what's at stake
You're right.Monday we could have news from the China trip.
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it.
Jin,
Could you (or any informed poster) explain to us non-technical investors how you determine that there is "very nice accumulation"? When I look at the trading over the last two months, I see only light volume.
What clues should I be looking for that would tell me that accumulation is taking place? Thanks.
Stealth and Dragon points are well-taken.
Note NR 98 quote below states that VP Eduardo's original plan was to visit the Middle East for one week. But he has stayed for over six weeks and now we learn he will be staying (at least)for T-day.
It is reasonable to infer that Eduardo's continued stay is a positive sign. Why else would Briscoe mention his original intent?
From NR 98
Vice President of Business Development Mexico, Eduardo Othon, has been in Abu Dubai for over six weeks talking with his contacts there. His original plan was to visit the Middle East financial center for one week.
Stealth,
The key here, and the reason why drilling on the "purchased claims" is so exciting, is the fact that the JV and the purchase/loan are interdependent. As pointed out by OMO, if the JV falters then the land is reclaimed. If NAK hits metal and finds something of significance it all but guarantees they move forward since the land doesn't belong to them without the JV.
I misread your post. I am not sure who owns the land that ND has identified in its CPQ
I agree..... My take is that they are putting DNR on notice that they may drill there. Remember, a permit for drilling is not necessary for holes up to 300 feet.
Thanks. That is good news.
Manti,
Thanks. I didn't see Moon's map. It is much more detailed than the map I saw. Is it your interpretation from the map that the sections ND noted are on Liberty land? I am not sure.
Help, Anybody?
King,
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I do not know what the co-ordinates are. I only know that ND's CPQ application used the Alaska Mapper method to determine location. I think they call it MTR. They left the Latitude/Longitude part blank.
We know from Hkipp and his son’s great DD that ND sought permission (and received it) from Alaska’s Department of Natural resources (DNR) to drill 5 holes on land they purchased from Liberty. The map which has been posted clearly shows the drill holes to be on ND’s recently purchased land.
The big question, of course, is whether or not ND is drilling on proposed JV Liberty land and not just purchased land.
As Hkipp has noted, ND filled out a 19 page Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) as part of their submission to DNR. On page two of this CPQ, there is a section labeled PROJECT LOCATION and LAND OWNERSHIP.
Under this section, ND identifies the “projects location” which references many more sites than the 5 located on ND’s purchased land. These locations can be found by using “Alaska Mapper” which is an interactive publicly accessible tool. This mapper breaks down location into 4 divisions: meridian, township, range, and section.
ND has noted the following on its application: meridian is Seward, Township is 2S & 3S, Range is 37W & 38W, Sections are: 1,2,3,6,7,10, 11-15, 18-20, 22-26, 31, 34-36
I am hoping that some computer savvy posters can get on this mapper and determine whether any of these multiple sections are owned by Liberty.
After reading the lawsuit filings that were posted, I add my opinion to those who believe that Liberty will prevail here.
The central issue in this case is whether or not Liberty’s issuance of 76.4 million shares to compensate unpaid directors (on 4-23-2010) triggered a clause in the warrant agreements that Liberty had with the plaintiffs allowing the plaintiffs to claim that: 1) They are entitled to more shares than they originally contracted for (ten times the number) and 2) They are entitled to get shares at a reduced exercise price ($.002 not the $.02 rate that they initially had)
As a general rule, courts do believe in enforcing contracts and making parties live up to what they bargained for. But deciding exactly what they bargained for oftentimes requires some judicial interpretation of contract language and intent of the parties. And before enforcing a contract, a court must also determine that the contract’s provisions do not violate any laws or otherwise go against public policy.
Now in order for the Judge to find against Liberty, he would have to find that the so-called warrant clauses that triggered a windfall to the plaintiffs were, in fact, properly triggered; that such a trigger could not be withdrawn by Liberty’s rescission of its stock issuance; and, most importantly, that these clauses are valid and enforceable.
Such a finding for the plaintiff is rather unlikely in my opinion because most judges who deal in matters of equity really want to do what is fair and a finding for the plaintiff in this case would require some bizarre determinations.
Specifically, the judge would have to ignore some rather strong defense arguments. To wit: The judge would have to make the determination that the NY usury law is not applicable in this case; that standard contract law disallowing penalties is not applicable in this case; and that Liberty has no right to cancel out and totally rescind the 76.4 million shares that it issued in April.
In addition to those three unlikely determinations, the judge would have to also overlook the fact that the plaintiffs – who are savvy business creditors and not likely to get much sympathy from the court – were, in fact, paid in full (all principal and interest).
Thus, to me, it is highly doubtful that any judge deciding this matter would reject all the defenses raised, ignore basic tenets of fairness that underscore Liberty’s position, and give the plaintiffs an undeserved windfall. Just my two cents.
Moondoggy,
I, too, wish to thank you for posting The Memorandum in Law in Opposition to a Preliminary Injunction and would also like to ask - as HKipp did - that you post, if possible, the Plaintiff's initial motion and any reply the Plaintiff makes to Bolton's Memorandum.
Like HKipp, I too thought the Memorandum was high quality. It was well-organized, clearly written, and quite persuasive. It certainly
appears from reading it that the Plaintiff has not met its burden and therefore will not prevail in its motion for an injunction.
But still, to make get the full picture here, it would be nice to see the Plaintiff's court filings. Hopefully, their papers are as vacuous and devoid of merit as we all think.
Stealth: Thank you for summarizing the case. For those of us who haven't seen the filings, your synopsis is quite informative.
After reading the complaints and the defenses to the complaints that you posted, one obvious defense seemed missing IMHO. My concern is Plaintiff's (point #3)where they complain about not being privy to knowledge about the NAK deal.
I didn't see a response to that point and I am wondering what your take on it is considering that many here have previously posted their opinions that LBSR had no duty to inform the Plaintiffs of an impending deal. Indeed, many also posted that giving the Plaintiff information - outside of a PR -would be illegal.
Your thoughts?
Just a reminder to all those that choose to sell large lots now: Unless your shares are held in a tax favored account(IRA, 401k, etc.), there will be a tax consequence from the sale this year. I am not an accountant, but my understanding is that a large sale - depending on your tax bracket and how long you have held the stock - might also trigger the alternative minimum tax(AMT). So all sellers would be well-advised to check with their accountants and get informed. You may not end up with as much money in your pocket as you think.