Heat Seeker and EB Farnum,
Could you explain your reasoning behind what prompted the "guess" and that it "makes sense" that the 6 million dollar loan and the recent purchase of 10.51% of Ursa Major Mineral company are connected.
If you recall all that is known about the loan agreement, I'm stumped as to how you added 2 + 2 and both came to your conclusions.
After wading through the May 17 2010 Interim Consolidated Financial Statement (unaudited) and available at Sedar, this is what is known about the loan :
8. LOAN RECEIVABLE
During the year ended September 30, 2009, the Company entered into a loan agreement with another company. The Company agreed to loan a total of $6,000,000 which bears interest at Prime plus 4% per year, compounded daily and is repayable on demand. As at March 31, 2010, a total amount of $6,000,000 was transferred for purposes of the loan agreement (September 30, 2009 - $722,331). The borrower granted the Company a general security over all of its present and after acquired personal property.
The balance at March 31, 2010 includes accrued interest of $165,525 (September 30, 2009 - $nil).
This is what is known about the 10.51% purchase of Ursa Major Mineral as taken from the news release:
As a result of the completion of the acquisition, Inspiration Mining Corporation now owns 6,850,00 common shares of the Company, representing 10.51% of the issued and outstanding common shares of the Company. Inspiration Mining Corporation effected the transaction for investment purposes. Inspiration Mining Corporation purchased the common shares through the facilities of the TSX.
I have had only a quick look at Ursa Major Minerals filings at Sedar, but wouldn't you both think that Ursa would have to disclose a sum of 6 million dollars being loaned to them? Especially when according to the loan agreement "The borrower granted the Company a general security over all of its present and after acquired personal property" wouldn't their shareholders have a right to know about this?
Sorry but I'm not following the logic of either one of you. Considering the publicly available information concerning both of these ventures, (the loan, and the 10.51% purchase) what am I missing, that you both seem to see so clearly?
TIA.