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.
Mountainstar Gold sends letter to Barrick re Tesoro
2012-08-01 16:25 ET - Shareholders Letter
Mr. Brent Johnson reports
NOTICE TO BARRICK (ABX)
Management of Mountainstar Gold Inc., the company, upon the advice of counsel, wish to disseminate to the public a letter that it delivered to Barrick Gold Corp. today.
Dear sirs/mesdames:
Re: Barrick Gold Corp. and its subsidiaries, Cia Minera Nevada Ltda., Cia Minera Nevada SpA: Pascua Lama project, the Pascua Lama protocol, the Securities Act of 1933 and Ontario Securities Act continuous disclosure requirements, related news publications
We are the solicitors for Mountainstar Gold Inc. (formerly Mountain-West Resources Inc.). We are writing further to Barrick's numerous filings on SEDAR and EDGAR, and Barrick's Dec. 21, 2011, info release respecting Barrick's Pascua Lama project, which publications make false assertions of ownership over a portion of the mining concessions on the Chilean side of the project.
In particular, Barrick has asserted ownership of the concessions called Tesoro Uno 1-30 to Tesoro Doce 1-5, inclusive, as shown in the list of concessions included in the Pascua Lama protocol, published on page eight of the "Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile."
Barrick has also asserted ownership of all concessions included in Appendix A of Barrick's technical report dated March 31, 2011, specifically including:
108 Tesoro Tres 1 Al 30;
109 Tesoro Cuatro 1 Al 30;
110 Tesoro Sets 1 Al 20;
111 Tesoro Diez 1 Al 20;
112 Tesoro Once 1 Al 20.
These assertions of Barrick's ownership of the Tesoro concessions are manifestly false. The Tesoro concessions are in fact owned by "Hector Unda Llanos," not Barrick. There is no notation of Barrick's interest in the Tesoro concessions in the margins of the Tesoro concessions' titles.
Moreover, the Tesoro concessions have been encumbered with a court-ordered injunction continuously since 2001, in a Chilean legal action having case No. C-1912-2001 (Villar-Compania) in the 14th Civil Court of Santiago; we are certain Barrick is aware of both the legal action and the referenced injunction. The injunction prohibits, inter alia, the sale, contracting, encumbering or commercial exploitation of the Tesoro concessions, including the minerals contained therein.
As regarding the Amarillos 1-3000 concessions which are superpositioned with the Tesoro concessions, our client's Chilean mining expert, Catalino Albanez, advises that the Amarillo concessions are non-metallic (salts and nitrates) concessions, and as such cannot support exploitation of the metallic (gold, silver and copper) mining project. Notwithstanding this inability of the Amarillo concessions to support the project, the Amarillo concessions are included in Barrick's project technical report and in the Pascua Lama protocol, as published on page eight of the "Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile."
Both the Tesoro concessions and the Amarillo concessions are effectively superpositioned with the Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur concessions (restituted Amarillo), which constitutes a portion of the mining concessions in which our client, Mountainstar Gold Inc., has obtained certain rights. These rights are set out in the option agreement filed on SEDAR May 28, 2012.
Barrick's improper inclusion of the Tesoro concessions and the Amarillo concessions in the project technical report and related publications is interfering with our client's ability to carry on its business described in the option agreement and accordingly, we hereby demand on behalf of our client that Barrick (and its employees and representatives) immediately cease and desist from repeating allegations of this nature. Mountainstar Gold Inc. takes its reputation extremely seriously and will take all necessary steps to protect that reputation. This includes, without limitation, commencing proceedings against Barrick for defamation and slander of title and/or filing a complaint with the applicable securities commissions. In any such proceedings Mountainstar will seek substantial damages, including general, aggravated, and punitive damages and Mountainstar reserves the right to share this letter with the applicable securities commissions.
Yours truly,
[signed by legal counsel]
On behalf of the board of directors,
Brent Johnson
President and chief executive officer
Mountainstar seeks to extinguish Pascua protocol
2012-07-25 16:43 ET - News Release
Mr. Brent Johnson reports
"BARRICK'S" PASCUA-LAMA PROJECT AND THE BI-NATIONAL TREATY (THE "PASCUA PROTOCOL")
Mountainstar Gold Inc. has learned that mining publication Business News Americas reported on Aug. 12, 2004: "Representatives from the governments of Argentina and Chile will meet in Santiago to sign the mining integration treaty protocol for the Pascua Lama bi-national project, Argentina's mining secretary reported. The protocol will provide the legal framework to begin the gold and silver project, whose construction will require some US$1bn. The document will be signed by Argentina's foreign affairs minister Rafael Bielsa and his Chilean counterpart, Soledad Alvear, together with Argentina's mining secretary Jorge Mayoral. Also present at the ceremony will be provincial authorities, legislators, and Argentine and Chilean businessmen, among others. The Pascua Lama project is owned by Canada's Barrick Gold (NYSE: ABX), which has already greenlighted development of the project on the Chile and Argentina border. The project will have a three-year construction period and will begin operations within 18 months once tax and financing issues are settled, the company said in July."
Mountainstar Gold, the company formerly known as Mountain-West Resources Inc., is currently financing a legal challenge to the bona fides of the Pascua protocol in Chile and seeks, among other things, a court order that the Pascua protocol be extinguished. Without the Pascua protocol, the Pascua Lama project, as currently proposed by Barrick Gold Corp. and its subsidiaries, in the opinion of management, cannot possibly proceed. The basis for this court challenge is that the Pascua protocol was erroneously obtained upon fatally flawed representations and assertions by Barrick, which errors are detailed as follows:
Amarillos 1-3000, a mining concession obtained by Barrick from Lac Minerals in 1994 and included in the Pascua protocol, is a non-metallic (salts and nitrates only) concession according to Sernatgeomin (Chile's Geological Authority) and as such, cannot rationally support a gold and silver project.
Amarillos 1-3000 is in the process of Mining Registry cancellation in the courts at Vallenar, Chile, owing to a long-outstanding superpositioning flaw (per the Chilean Mining Code).
Barrick, which claims to own Tesoros Uno 1 to 30 to Tesoros Doce 1 to 5 concessions and which concessions are also included in the Pascua protocol, has admitted to the court at Vallenar, Chile, that it does not possess any documents of ownership of Tesoros, nor does it possess any valid legal rights in Chile to allow the exploitation of the Tesoros concessions. Accordingly, in the opinion of management, Barrick must cease claims of ownership or legal control over the Tesoros claims or, potentially face serious consequences in Chile, where such transgressions are taken very seriously by the courts.
The Tesoros concessions have been subject to a court-ordered injunction since 2001 which prohibits, among other things, contracting with, encumbering or otherwise commercially exploiting the Tesoros concessions pending the outcome of a court action in Santiago, Chile (case No. C-1912-2001). In the opinion of management, the Tesoros concessions, having also been included in Barrick's Pascua protocol, should never have been claimed to have been owned by Barrick, as these concessions have never been legally owned or controlled by Barrick, in accordance with Chilean law.
MSX's joint venture partner, Jorge Lopehandia, owns unencumbered title (certified domain) to the Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur concessions (restituted Amarillo), over the Mina Pascua Chile areas of geological interest. These concessions are positioned superimposed over the Tesoros areas, which Barrick's own lawyer Gonzalo Nieto identified, in 2010 court proceedings in the 14th Civil Court of Santiago, Chile (case No. C-1912-2001), as possessing the greatest geological interest for the Pascua Lama project.
These restituted Amarillo concessions are described in the option agreement between the company and Mr. Lopehandia.
We seek Safe Harbor.
Mountainstar reviews Arizona court decision, may appeal
2012-07-18 18:44 ET - News Release
Mr. Brent Johnson reports
PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA RULING (MSX)
Mountainstar Gold Inc., formerly known as Mountain-West Resources Inc., has reviewed the ruling on the court submission of May 14, 2012, of the court in Pima county, Arizona.
The Judge has ruled on all issues as follows:
1. Granted, the Motion to Dismiss on Henry Ranspot as he is not a citizen of Arizona. He
moved to Colorado in November 2011.
2. Granted, the Motion to Dismiss on Marisa Fitzgerald as she also in not a citizen of Arizona.
3. The Judge has found that our claims were adjudicated in Canada and are therefore barred by
res judicata.
4. The Trust is being administered in Washington State and thus is not subject to jurisdiction in
Arizona.
5. The claims against the Trust are barred by the four month statute of limitations for bringing
claims against the Estate.
The Company has a time window to file a Motion for Reconsideration or an Appeal.
Discussions with our attorney are ongoing and the Board of Directors will make a decision, in the short term, as to how we are going to proceed. We will advise shareholders in a timely manner.
Shareholders should keep in mind that the Company currently has an appeal in process in the Washington State Court of Appeals. This appeal should be ruled on before the end of August 2012. If favorable, this would make MSX an ascertainable creditor against the Fitzgerald, Goldstrike Living Trust. In our opinion, this would effectively negate whatever we continue to do in the Arizona courts.
Neither the Canadian National Stock Exchange nor the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
someone may have posted these already. Google Chrome gives a very rough translation.
http://www.elciudadano.cl/2012/05/22/52969/propiedad-de-pascua-lama-en-litigio/
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150673225432470&set=a.436476177469.231481.14048602469&type=1&theater
come on gang let's not get discouraged. At this price the market still has us valued at almost $26m! We have nothing, but a great story, and at 26m that means people know about it and many have bought into it.
Batten down the hatches and lock to doors, its another edition of Bre-X.
Mr. Lopehandia,
Thank you for taking some of your time to answer questions.
For sometime now, fellow posters on this fine board have made many comments about mapping and discrepancies relative to where ABX claimed the reserve to be. You mentioned the NI43-101. Are you and MWR management 100% confident the 43-101 was done on your property? Given "their" apparent shenanigans, I believe it's a fair question.
Thanks again!
I don't believe it's the type of PR that will catch the attention of investors? Does the average investor read this and get an itch to buy? It's really cool if you've been following for a while, and it's ballsy, but as a PR that helps tell the story, it fails.
We need to get the story out. With no website and a myriad of almost cryptic posts people aren't buying.
This story should be huge, and due to "big interests" coupled with our mgt's inability to tell a compelling story....here we are.
Mountain-West Resources Inc
Symbol C : MWR
Shares Issued 51,741,710
Close 2011-12-05 C$ 0.48
Recent Sedar Documents
View Original Document
Mountain-West claims Barrick's filings fraudulent
2011-12-06 21:42 ET - News Release
Mr. Brent Johnson reports
BARRICK 2011 MINA PASCUA SEC-OSC FILINGS ARE FRAUDULENT
Mountain-West Resources Inc. is clarifying the ownership of Mina Pascua.
Barrick Gold Corp. filed the Amarillos 1-3000 and Tesoros concessions in 2011, lacking clean title of these assets.
Mina Pascua is to Barrick the Amarillos 1-3000 salt and nitrate concessions dating from 1978 to 2011. They were purchased as part of the Lac Minerals business transaction in 1994.
The Tesoros concessions never belonged to Barrick as filed in 2011 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Ontario Securities Commission or as filed in the Pascua Lama protocol. Mountain-West is in possession of all evidence and challenges Peter Munk-Barrick to a meeting with the company and Jorge Lopehandia in Vancouver, B.C.
Please provide the Chile titles and maps you represented to Silver Wheaton in the multimillion-ounce silver transaction from Chile.
We patiently await your response.
------------------------
Seriously? This is not inspiring.....
...and if we read ABX's financial statements (specifically the MD&A) they stopped discussing PL in Chile in February.
They only refer to PL in Argentina after that point. In other words, they used to talk about PL Chile and Argentina (check dated balance sheets and MD&A) and now they don't. They have PL in Argentina, as they now say. We have PL Chile (simplified I know) but that's what it is.
Said miner has skirted this whole issue. There will be no fraud charges, or halts. It'll be business as usual except MWR owns a chunk and we make mucho dineros.
We're good to go. Shelve the skepticism, ignore those having tantrum(s) due to not being included, and purchase. :)
Quer, your posts, i tell you, remind me, so, often, of this fella:
That there, is your most coherent post ever. Ever! If we can get Quer to refine his/her comma strategy, we'll have a small victory.
I would also think that Wall St CEO's who banked 100's of millions on selling both Collateralized Debt Obligations and then selling firms (and countries) Credit Default Swaps on the same CDO's would end up in legal action.....
(essentially selling snake oil, and then also selling insurance on the ineffective snake oil....read Lewis' "The Big Short"...or the Doc "Inside Job".....or Frontline's "Inside the Meltdown" avail on pbs.org) Fascinating and humbling.
I would think the millions that lost their jobs, homes, marriages and dignity would also want justice.
Instead those folks/Wall St execs faced zero accountability, and many have found themselves in high ranking gov't positions.
Said Miner's shenanigans is peanuts compared to the big US banks that killed the world economy. Furthermore, "Manufacturing Consent" will keep this from the main stream.
PR that states option agreement is approved, and the world moves on. We move on with more bucks knowing that justice is served when it does't rattle too many cages.
Sad but true.
Movie at 11:00 is merely a sitcom.... :)
I may be completely wrong, but that change in their language seems hopeful. It seems like an easy way to mitigate strong allegations against them. I also believe an implosion by said miner is not a good thing. It'll make great headlines, but I have a lot more holdings than MWR and we don't need our exchange(s) thrown under the proverbial bus. I also argue that all of the allegations, however apparently accurate, hurts our share price as it scares off potential investors.
If we can just have a release that the option agreement is approved by the exchange...we should be away.
Quer - read the dang post I submitted.
Said miner has changed their tune in their interim financials - I may be wrong, but that's positive for MWR. Very positive.
Also, Eclipse made no reference to MWR being fake like wrestling - him and I were making fun of SD/Truegold for his speaking in the 3rd person.
There's that 3rd person again.
OOOOOOHHHHHH NNNOOOOOO
Steven "Macho Schlep" Davis!!!!!
Likely discussed already, but I just want to reiterate.
Said miner's Feb 18th's Annual Audited are filled with references to PL Chile. The Annuals distinguish between Chile and Argentina specifically.
Then poof.....gone.
The language changes on said miners Apr 28 2011 Interim Financials and is consistent with July 29 2011 interim report. Prior to, statements in interim were simply Pascualama. As of Apr 28, 2011 we see a change. On page 91 said miner writes about 'Argentine portion' of Pascualama. This is the first time I note the distinction. Now, it's in the context of the constitutionality of new legislation relative to mining near the glacier. Is this a simple and discreet method in which said miner can argue previous claims were an issue of semantics? Is this how the wild shenanigans will be glossed over?
There is NO mention of PL Chile since Annual Statements published Feb 18th.
Thoughts?
SD/Truegold,
Why speak in the 3rd person? I keep watching for you to enter a professional wrestling ring. Furthermore, PhD and Dr. both denote post-graduate achievement. Your use is redundant and your blathering incessant.
What PF is doing on the Y board is defamation, unless it is true, correct?
If PF was defaming said miner, then he'd be shut up by now, correct?
Therefore, what PF writes is true.....?
...crazy times :)
companies invest on non "sure things" all the time. it's called risk.
..........................
This explains a lot about why it's not a big story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media
order the dvd...
There's no way MWR will raise the 1.89b without greater exposure. Will a major institution underwrite us for that much risk? How can our mgt get us in the main-stream? What they're doing will not work. All of the excitement and yet we're suffering double-digit losses on less than 10,000 shares traded. liquid like molasses, in the Arctic.
Either management learn to communicate and build excitement in the main-stream, or we better pray for a take-over.
this is a fun stock, and has redefined risk in my mind.
all or nothin ' folks!
What a great story! This is the funnest stock I've ever owned. I accept the explosive risk. How come no one has picked it up? Something this potentially explosive could and should get a reporter's name in lights. A career maker. And jeepers!! The Sino news was huuuuge. I emailed 2 of the reporters whom broke the story first....no reply.
Is anyone familiar with Noam Chomsky's The Manufacture of Consent?
The name change as well could be holding things up. Once unhalted it may trade under another symbol. I'm thinking September, and I have no basis for that. :)
That's what a 43-101 is all about. 3rd party independent evaluation. Fudging it would be short sited for the 3rd party. They're traditionally conservative. I'm confident (for what it's worth) that the 43-101 is accurate and reliable.
Without a 43-101, if you accept, I'll sell you some shares of moose pasture in Northern Alberta. 100 bucks a pop. Any takers?
I'm simply challenging the mgt team to post something which demonstrates an element of competency. Q3 fins were due a long long time ago; press releases are improperly dated and address issues of the past as if they are still in the future. It's sloppy, and I hope and pray that other work they are doing is cleaner, so to speak.
By sitting on this board and making excuses, we are essentially providing positive reinforcement for what appears to be, well, poor work.
I bought some shares knowing I was rolling the dice. It'll be a big win, or zilch. I accept that. What I do not accept is this sloppiness, which could suggest incompetence. If they're slapping together communication to the shareholders, what level of respect does that demonstrate?
Furthermore, them doing 'that which they must,' is an assumption.
I really enjoy reading this board. We have some good laughs and shed a few exasperated sighs. I giggle at the wildly speculative posts and I also enjoy when someone plays the devil's advocate. I appreciate the posts and the people.
I also think this dialogue is important since we're not being served what we paid for. I'm tempted to send the steak back to the kitchen, it's a little too rare boys!
I must admit though, holding some MWR is a pile of fun, and a lot of that is owed to you fine folks.
With sincere intentions,
D
It' not mgt bashing. We have our money in the company and have every right to hold them accountable. These haphazard releases are inappropriate. The mgt team is reading this board, so come on guys! Pick up your socks!
Without some push back, the crap will continue to flow. Let's stop making excuses for them and hold them accountable.
I'm not sure where credit is due? This is a very lame release and is definitely embarrassing. How can someone publish this and still hold their head up?
We tend to make excuses for the mgt team. Are we blinded by optimism? I keep dreaming of a new boat and tend to forgive the apparent incompetence.
As far as them being required to post, or not being able to choose.....has anyone seen this kind of silliness before? Not I.
0.04 may be a good out the way this company's mgt appears to function.
i'm an optimist as most others are on this board, but come on MWR! This communication (or lack thereof) is weak and begs the question of competency.
...prayin' I'm wrong....
D
my oh my this company is poor at communication. i did hear though that the management team is riding the first barge brimming with Chile, and the internet connection is poor.
hopefully something as important is preventing the release of financials, properly dated communication, and whatever else is going on. it's gonna be big news, or devastation.
'nucks up 1-0
Godspeed to the mighty souls that undertake this mystical move. I also read that the glacier will be left to Argentina, and Pascua Lama will now circumvent those complex environmental issues.
I've got a few bucks in this company and am excited like other folks on this board.
I need some clarification please?
The potential from Fitzgerald and Lopehandia, as I understand it could be huge.
But....we're waiting for interim financials - Q3 info, and the 3rd quarter ended Jan 31st. That's a long time ago. We're also waiting for MD&A. Isn't this odd? What have I missed? Others seem to think this is normal? Is mgt capable? 2.5 months for financials in a very small company?
Are we accepting this risk due to the possible upside? Is the ability to file fins and pursue legal action mutually exclusive?
Thoughts?
Thanks all!