Replies to post #66861 on Colorado Goldfields Inc. (fka CGFI)

[1manband]

It's the SEC's job to facilitate capital formation

It is also the SEC's job to combat stock fraud. Which is what CGFI was. The bogus NI 43-101 report was one example. And CGFI's response was a classic - according to them, they had no idea what the term meant. They thought just attaching the term to the cover page of the report was what all companies did. Hilarious.

If the CEO had not died, I almost guarantee the SEC would have filed civil fraud charges here.

[1manband]

One assumes that any shareholder of a public company has thoroughly read through the SEC filings. Especially SEC comment lettes. But just in case...

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=colorado+goldfields&owner=exclude&action=getcompany

CGFI never did bother to file the revised disclosure they told the SEC they would. And they are now seriously delinquent in their regular filing obligations. If the SEC doesn't file civil fraud charges, they will at least eventually revoke the company which should put an end to this fraud once and for all.

[sanbrunobaby]

Just one of many examples link below

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1344394/000000000014032553/0000000000-14-032553-index.htm

SEC role in capital formation principally is to build comfort in markets by making sure there is proper disclosure (in their opinion). The numerous SEC letters to CGFI list numerous areas SEC considered their disclosure either insufficient, or so un-supported they asked for it to be deleted. Since CFO was portrayed by some as competent individual, the question is why was he so unaware of proper disclosure ?

The whole NI43-101 issue to refresh your memory was that (a) US company doesnt need NI43-101 which is for Canadian exchange and for use with Canadian filing (b) CGFI claimed NI43-101 but qualified cutely (c) their purported report didn't comply with NI43-101 standards anyway as that mining savvy person posted quite well.

[sanbrunobaby]

I guess question could be is there anyone after reading SEC letters and CGFI responses who believes CFO had sufficient knowledge to handle disclosure for a public company ?