Replies to post #45192 on Medinah Minerals (MDMN)

[Toxic Avenger]

Welcome to the club.

Add on "no ownership until all $180 million is paid", "everything signed except all the important details" and the "dividend" and you have the makings of another disappointment.

It all begins with the "we have a deal, but it's so super secret that we can't tell you anything about it EXCEPT that it's signed, it's a huge company, they're going to give us $180 million for 85% interest and the finalization is imminent". If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

[Hurricane_Rick]

[Rawnoc]

I've ridden more OTCs to buyout than I can count.

I have never had a single one leak any information whatsoever about the buyout on message boards that I can recall until it became public. Not even once that I can recall, and I've ridden more OTCs to buyout than I can literally remember (including yet another one last month).

So I actually find it to be a positive that there's no name even hinted at anywhere. Whenever there IS a name hinted at, it seems like it never happens. Real deals usally do NOT get leaked so I consider this a positive.

Though I must say -- all of my examples were fully reporting SEC companies. Never rode a non-reporting pinksheet to buyout or major deal like this that I can recall so this would be the first. But then again, I rarely hold a pinksheet for more than a week either so fingers crossed on MDMN.

[Hurricane_Rick]

When there is a planned merger or a planned acquisition of a publicly traded company, there is a time frame within which the execution of the planned merger or acquisition takes place.

And by all counts according to the March 7 Q&A update, there still is. The company provided relatively good detail as to what was left to accomplish (on the purchaser's part) before the NDA would be lifted:

"Several Auxiliary Agreements detailing final preparatory matters; including legal parameters, drilling and exploration operations, mandated duties of the Purchasing Group, and final delineated responsibilities of the parties, are now being presented for signature. This will release the first tranche of the $180,000,000.00 funding and discharge the obligations the parties have under the Non-Disclosure and Non-Circumvention Agreements.

At some point, there are even rumors of the plans for a take over or a merger, and the suitor's name is even leaked out.

Surely there is a NDA and so forth in place, but at some point, nothing can hold back the rumors, and the beans are spilt, and the suitor, acquirer, merger candidate's identity is divulged if not leaked out.

I find it incomprehensibly confounding that someone would criticize the company for being responsible, not risking the deal and abiding by the terms of the NDA. The BOD should be commended, not criticized for their strict adherence.

I would like to know how it is that MDMN has such a tight discipline that no one, I repeat, NO ONE, ever mentions the suitor's names, identity, or any shadow of a glimpse of who the hell it is that has made an agreement to purchase part, all or become involved in negotiations in a JV of some type.

MDMN's tight discipline is unfortunately attributable to the BOD learning their lesson by breaking the NDA in the past when, due to intense shareholder pressure, JJ disclosed that Hoschild was the JV partner back in 2007. As far as discussing who the current potential suitors are, this has been discussed at length on other message boards based on publicly revealed information. We haven't discussed it so much on I-Hub.

So I understand the need for confidentiality,

Based on your comments in this post, it is quite clear that you do not.

but what of the previously failed bids for a JV? Who the hell was it that supposedly did not follow through and backed out of the previously announced deal?

Don't you guys want to know who the hell it was? I want to know who it was.

Based on unintentional public comments by the company some of us have figured out who they are and they are available to anyone with enough wherewithal and ears to figure out. I'd begin by listening very carefully to the 5 1/2 hours of video recordings from the shareholder's meeting.

I want to know what the hell is the big secret any more. Why protect or otherwise keep the old, stale bit of info confidential.

Because most NDAs customarily remain in force well past any failed negotiation period. I was personally under an NDA for 10 years after a contract that ended in 2001. The NDA that was used for MDMN's 2001 failed JV which unbeknownst to them at the time was the front operation for the FBI Bermuda Short's sting, had a 2 year obligation period:

"The obligations set forth in this Agreement shall terminate two (2) years after the effective Date of the Agreement."

So the previous JV did not go through. So what. Deals break up, and deals happen. The last one that we all waited for a year or more did not materialize. So what, S--t happens. But why agree to keep the identity of that JV suitor a big secret?

Because there is a purpose to the NDA. There presumably is also a penalty for violating the NDA. And finally, since the company has indicated that they are seeking legal remedies from the ex-JV partner for the non-performance of the contract, it would greatly weaken or perhaps completely jeopardize Medinah's case if they violate the NDA especially since the partner's name will no doubt be publicly disclosed during the discovery phase of any litigation that might ensue. In this case the BOD has an absolute fiduciary duty to uphold the terms of the NDA for the company, the BOD and its shareholders...and yes, even the ex-JV partner. And ultimately since the company is closing a purchase of the ADL property, it doesn't make one bit of difference who the ex-JV partner was. I'm guessing it probably only matters to you because you have doubts.

So I will come to the chase. If there was a JV that went south, then let us know who that suitor was. If there was never a JV then come clean and tell us what the hell went on.

I will cut to the chase as well - If anyone believes for one second that there never was a JV, then you are essentially saying the company has been lying for the last 18 months...not only on their website, but to shareholder's faces at the recent SHM. And if any shareholder that does believe the company has been lying to them and they believe that there never was a JV, yet they STILL hold their position when they can get out right now at break even or a small loss, well then I contend that shareholder is an absolute unadulterated idiot.

A discussion with a party regarding a JV does not constitute a JV. Only talk. Was there a JV or not. Let us know.

So last year's ordeal was just discussions? You might want to reread the communications from the company.

Similarly, now we are expected to sit tight and believe that the deal is done, all it requires are the final signatures, which documents have been presented for signature.

I have never heard so much none sense about the finalization, duties of parties, on and on and on and on it goes.

You aren't expected to do anything. It really is quite simple...if you don't believe what the company is telling you, or you believe it is nonsense, then sell. You'd be a fool to harbor such doubts and resentment and still hold your shares.

What is the deal here. Do we have a deal or not?

"The deal is done." - G. Chapin 2/11/2012
Question to G. Chapin "Do we have a signed deal?" G. Chapin "Yes".

http://www.livestream.com/theminingplay/video?clipId=pla_63620d22-5a45-44b1-8f9f-2d1a7f56dc53&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb

Just speak plain old English. Is there is deal or not? Or are you simply talking out there to anyone and everyone, and no one wants to quite meet your terms. I will give you that much benefit of the doubt, rather than saying "you have no deal".

Aside from JJ, I thought the company spoke quite clear English at the shareholder's meeting (eventually) and was quite clear what was left to do in their March 7 Q&A which I linked above. Clearly everything is out of the company's hands and is in the partner's hands to finish up their auxiliary agreements. We don't know how many sub-partners there are in this deal, but presumably there are more than one. I'm not going to pretend to know what their timeline is, but I do not for one minute believe that GC or LR or JJ were lying about what has been and is going on with the finalization of the purchase agreement. And it is quite clear that Medinah's BOD has been led to believe that everything is very close to completion towards moving forward and eventually lifting the NDA.

Is this is just another exercise in testing how long we shareholders can hold on while those who need to dump at these highs dump and wait for the next low's to buy back in.

It's an open market. You had the same opportunity to buy at .04 in September as all other shareholders and sell at .17 just last week. You have the opportunity to sell now and buy back lower or sell now and risk missing the run-up. And if I had the same doubts and misgivings you have, there is no way in hell I'd be holding shares.

[myrtle222]

Sentiments of your post IMO are shared by many. I'm starting to believe it is a bit of what I'm starting to call the "JJ "effect.
Have you thought of calling or e mailing the protagonist of this little saga, to see if you could get some answers that will be meaningful and true?
I do believe that there have been many opportunities to sell, no one is holding us against our will.
That carrot is a powerful tool isn't it?
GLTA