I agree with Hubert that the MOU disclosure probably is insignificant.

However, I'm not sure this is so because Ming Fung is making this up. It could well be that the content of the MOU is not substantive enought to constitute 'material information' and therefore require disclosure.

1. If you read the MOU, it actually doesn't say anything specific, e.g. discussed funding amounts or intervalls, time of funding, what stake Ming would get etc. Further, there's so many conditions that my grandmother could enter into a MOU with similar substance ("Provided that I win the lottery, suddenly start craving for investments in Canadian gold e&d companies, David Webb starts wearing a funny hat and fake moustache and the sun shines tomorrow, then perhaps I shall consider contemplating investing an amount of unspecified size at such time from now to infinity as may be agreed.")

2. There were hardly any movements in the share price yesterday. If the information was material one assumes someone would have reacted on it. (Then again perhaps the price skyrockets on Monday now that this info has become a bit more widespread -- then I shall eat my hat.)

I'm not familiar with Canadian case law or market practise on disclosure of MOU's but the materialty concept is from what I understand subjective and rather ambigious, so perhaps Tyhee just couldn't be bothered to announce this loose-goose nonsense document. Just a thought. Then again you guys probably know Tyhee's disclosure and announcment practice better than I do so feel free to correct.

_Peter