"answer with unwelcomed remarks"
I sincerely hope I am not counted among those, but for someone to say there is no legally binding agreement because they personally weren't in the room when Briscoe negotiated and signed the current version/phase of the JV is irresponsible. It affects shareholder sentiment in this forum, but more importantly, there are legally binding statements concerning this joint venture, public, official and documented, that mean that these companies have committed to the terms of a binding agreement, one that is governed by a host of laws on a state, federal, and international level due to the many considerations that must be addressed before any of the steps in the development process can be taken, through agencies as varied as the EPA, SEC, BLM, etc. Put simply, Briscoe, Theissen, the multi-billion dollar corporate shareholders of NAK or the State of Alaska don't need anyone here to tell them when they have an official joint venture. They are paying claims and drilling holes, transferring land and securing loans, all because these things have been made possible through the formation of a publicly announced joint venture.
When two publicly reporting companies state that they have entered (not "gee, we might think about it...) a joint venture/earn-in, through official news release, to develop claims, they are bound by a legal obligation that has been approved by the shareholders in the case of NAK, and by our CEO, as OTC juniors are subject to differing regulations for the unilateral enacting of material change events by company officers. We were informed through official news, as were NAK shareholders. There is serious liability to act outside the provisions of the agreement or in a manner other than what has been publicly stated, unless either party opts out as per existing provisions. Anyone who doesn't like the opt-out provision can sell their stock, but don't act like it's not a legitimate agreement. There are a host of laws that frame this issue and make it quite clear to some of us.
We should be thankful that Briscoe didn't ink away the company to NAK 'as-is' at the inception of the agreement, because without proving the claims via the JV plan, we'd get a cheap-o deal like FMM. The fact that NAK wants a JV and earn-in vs. a lowball buyout says A) We had some clout at the table, probably due to the comparative ZTEM data. B) NAK thought they could add value to their already valuable company (there is no other reason) by committing to a JV with LBSR, and C) The data on these claims made them more desirable than some others to those with the information, as Briscoe effectively used the data to secure an agreement that kept the claims from ending up with A&P or worse.
Do I need to show someone my birth certificate before they believe I'm a legal citizen? Tough cookies. Look it up. Let the burden of proof fall on the accuser. I'm not required to carry around a copy for every schmoe that thinks I'm not legal. There are official channels for finding such info. Ditto for JV's between public companies.
AI
