Replies to post #57566 on Medinah Minerals (MDMN)

[Hurricane_Rick]

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?

Don't forget what company we're discussing here. ;-) For several updates throughout the year, Medinah had reported that Amarant had been abiding by all terms of the contract. Obviously that leads shareholders to question what kind of contract was written that allows Amarant to shelve the property for 9 months or so while claiming ownership of it on their website without paying anything for it. The Alluvia Mining collateral shares served as some kind of interim pledge or "commitment", but that didn't move the development of the property ahead at all as Amarant continued struggling to raise the funds for ADL. So long story short, I believe Medinah was merely continuing with the same narrative that until Amarant did not abide by the terms of their contract, the contract was legally or technically still in force.

I agree with you though that there was really no compelling reason (at least that I can think of) as to why the company even needed to mention it in their April update with the impending default deadline approaching. Based on reports from Les Price, Ulander had constantly communicated his intentions to fund...even up to the 11th hour of the drop dead date. This was reflected in several updates as well. Ulander also communicated to some Medinah shareholders, myself included, of his intent on funding ADL despite issues with his European investors. So from Medinah's perspective, the BOD was led to believe that Amarant/Ulander intended on funding and as such, Medinah reported that the terms of the contract were still in force.

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?

I don't know why Amarant believes the contract is still in effect. Medinah's update and filing made it quite clear what the chronology of the default was on Amarant's side. Amarant is undertaking a lot of pressure and the empire nicknamed "Ulandia" appears to be collapsing like a house of cards. I would imagine for investment and fund-raising purposes, they want to show ADL as an asset in their portfolio. I don't believe they will just remove it from their website until they are legally compelled to do so. While the company hasn't had much time to address this situation as it coincided with their current trip to Chile, I'm not sure what Medinah can do at this point to make Amarant remove the ADL reference from their website. I am submitting a question to them in this regard. I don't believe a threatening letter from Robert Hackney will compel Amarant to remove it. It may take an announcement of a joint venture on ADL or pressure from irate Amarant bondholders before it is ever removed.

As an investor in MDMN, it must trouble you that their previous partner is still claiming ownership of the flagship property.

Yes it does. Like most, if not all, shareholders, I would like to move on from this sordid chapter. While I've never been divorced (or married), I imagine nobody would want their ex hanging around mucking up the works while trying to move on with their new partner. It bothers me, but there are more important issues that need to be taken care of first.