I will answer briefly but I provided more info in my posts months back in answer to another posters persistent questions re this issue-who eventually came over to the long side.
The only reason the Mexican company was created by CWRN was to comply with Mexican mining laws. The Mexican company is private. It does not have stock of its own-so the only place the revenue CAN go is to CWRN shareholders. It is de facto a wholly owned sub though CWRN calls it an affilate presumably to comply w Mexican mining law.
Many PR'S include the following language:
"The Baja Pacific -- "Mina Guadalupe" is operated by Panamerican Minerals Ventures, S.A. de C.V., Ensenada, Baja California, under contract with CWRN and held in trust for CWRN by its principal officers and directors, Robert L. Cotton and Sharon Vazquez.
Who is CWRN? CWRN is the stockholders.
So this contract/trust is for the benefit of all CWRN stockholders.
As you can see from the pictures Bob and Sharon(who I believe is his wife-not just girlfriend)are happily married and working w each other. (Lots of people-especially when they have to work around or with machinery don't wear their wedding rings).
Sharon is Pres of Mexican co w Bob as VP-to comply w Mexican law -since Sharon is a Mexican national.
Bob and Sharon have CONTRACTUALLY REPRESENTED to CWRN shareholders that via the contractual relationship tying the 2 companies together that all revenues will inure to CWRN shareholders-which include Bob and families closely held 1.75 B shares.
They have represented this continually and consistently so they are BARRED/ESTOPPED from denying or breaking this contractual relationship w CWRN stockholders.
So there is a CONTRACT. Violation of the contract would bring legal sanction.
There is a TRUST. All property of the privately held Mexican company legally/contractually belongs to the parent CWRN VIA THIS TRUST.
If you make a will or trust to pass on your property,the courts will enforce that will/trust/contract absent considerations that are not relevant here.
By representing this relationship and even noting it in PR's,this also separately forms a de facto contract w every CWRN stockholder,each of whom could sue for violation of contract.
So,for Bob and/or Sharon to do anything else re the revenue would subject them to legal sanction. If they were to take the money they would be lifelong fugitives-which makes no sense since it took their entire lives to find this successful formula-and many entrepreneurs never find the formula.
And CWRN would still exist and keep operating w a new Mexican national "overseer" and revenues would still inure/belong to CWRN stockholders. And Bob/Sharon would forfeit their shares so CWRN float holders would have final say in the operations and probably have a pps share increase(after initial uncertainty) due to the reverse dilution-i.e Bob and Sharon forfeiting their shares.
All "western" countries recognize and enforce private property rights. Absent a Mexican revolution/Mexican nationalization and forfeiting of private property rights.
imo
