Re: Timing of defamation action
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 31, 2014 02:24PM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
Any other thoughts on the timing of this action?
I think the timing is very interesting too, but it implies to me that the stock price is suddenly much more important. That's why they would be taking action now on things that have been said for the past year.
The stock price could be important for many reasons, but ultimately if it is important then maybe all our fortunes rest on it moving upwards before a liquidity event, which is an unsettling thought.
There might be the need for more financing for an acquisition, there might be the intention to go forward with an offer to Teck and need the stock price to gain to make the offer seem more reasonable, they might be planning on initiating the spinoff because they can't sell to Teck or anyone else and need the stock price to be higher, they might be getting a third-party estimate of value and are coming up against the market price, someone might be doing some M&A DD on us and have found these allegations.
Truth is generally a complete defense to any allegation of defamation.
Sure, unless it is Libel Per Se and good luck proving the truth in that because you can't say that someone has committed a criminal act absent an actual criminal conviction.
People who go around making rash statements of illegality or fraud are being reckless in my opinion. If they really believe in what they say, then I guess they can put their money where their mouth is and fight it in court. I wouldn't want to be in that position myself.
The latter scenario is what I am hoping for, that they know a spectacular liquidity event is on the horizon and that they're going to be in a strong position to succeed on a defamation claim, if that is what they intend to proceed with.
Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me. If a "spectacular liquidity event" was on the horizon they wouldn't be bothering about defamation suits because the results would silence the naysayers. They would be jubilant and vindicated, not commencing lawsuits.
The resounding implication is that the stock price is important and I thought Mike said something about that too at PDAC to someone.