HR, I'm willing to give you and MDMN the benefit of the doubt as to why they worded their Q&A the way the did. I won't quibble but frankly, it does seem a bit disingenuous. Why put out the Q&A with information that was later proved false? Better to keep their mouth shut and let things play out wouldn't you agree? They obviously knew things were going south so why even put out the info?
In light of the default, why does Amarant still claim to own 85% of ADL and still claim the contract with MDMN is legit? It's been week now; surely the BOD and JJ has addressed this. Any ideas as to why Amarant is still claiming ownership? If Les Price can be believed (that is a stretch since he's been caught in a few lies), MDMN is speaking with 5 interested parties. Seems like they should tie up some lose ends before moving on.
As an investor in MDMN, it must trouble you that their previous partner is still claiming ownership of the flagship property.
Legally cute could come back to bite Medinah in a lawsuit by Amarant if Amarant claims they were in full compliance, consistent with what Medinah told the World through its' Q&A.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
