Hello Cappysmart.

If I’m mistaken about the 30%, I think it fair to attribute my error to the News Release’s poor syntax. However, rereading the wording and the sentence structure, the meaning remains the same to me as before.

Cutting through the gobbledygook (and, for now, leaving it out):

In return for giving up 100% of Lamêlée to Gimus, we get to own shares representing 70% of Gimus. “Fancamp will transfer its 100% interest in the Project [Lamêlée] in consideration for the issuance by Gimus of 43,000,000 common shares to Fancamp.”

“The transaction will constitute a reverse takeover of Gimus by Fancamp within the meaning of the policies of the TSX-V.”

According to Peter H. Smith, “Fancamp, with its initial 70% stake in Gimus, will be in a position to take full advantage of the Project upside as the company’s largest shareholder assuming the completion of the contemplated transaction.”

Cappysmart, for what it’s worth (it’s really too early to say for sure), my first impression of the deal is the same as yours. On the surface, it’s far from fair to Fancamp. And, according to past performance, I suspect (as you do) that there is more bad to this than the bad first impression.

Peter H. Smith makes a bizarre statement, “The proposed transaction is a win-win-win situation for Fancamp, Champion and Gimus.” Well, as Luker asked (so that he could name the names behind it), “Who is Gimus Resources??” My question is, “When did we make glorious Gimus a member of the trio?”

Certainly, Gimus is no great benefactor who has appeared out of nowhere to save the day. I don’t see (at least yet) what money or connections Gimus brings to the table that measures up to the substantial stake in Lamêlée we’re giving up. But, at this stage of the game, who knows? We now find ourselves stuck in a corner (with few options) due to our leadership’s previous missteps and misadventures. Possibly, at this point in time, this latest brainstorm is the best we can do.