>The Mineral Tenure Act is very clear. It was good to refresh my old prospector memory. My original comment was that the remining lapsed claims within the lapsed footprint are " Not Available " This is for a reason, be it Procedural ? or Related to the issue ?

The Mineral Tenure Act is very clear. You Snooze zzzzzzzzzzz You Lose zzzzzzzzzzzzz<

Nowara - I am no lawyer or expert with the Mineral Tenure Act but I think there is a possibility this deal can be reversed.

I may be wrong but I think the Gold Commissioner (Ministry of Mines) can reverse the forfeiture if he/she feels the new claim holders did not aquire them for the purpose of mining. If they claimed with the intent of reselling them that may be a violation of the act.

It would be interesting to know if Carmax contacted the new claim holders in the Yukon or Carmax was contacted by them.

If indeed it is true that Carmax is negotiating with these fellows than I would hope they would least seek advice from the Mines Ministry to see if they need to deal with these guys.

Here is a link to some info I found but I am not sure of the date. I know amendments were made in 2012.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/mineral-exploration-mining/documents/mineral-titles/notices-mineral-placer-titles/tacrd-10-15_mta_amendments1.pd