Sinister, you are obviously missing the point here and by the look of your post, you are talking as if management had the power to see the future stock price. Now that perspective concerns me.

I would ask the serious question, that if management had the capability of knowing that there investment dollars were gonna drop 90% in the future, how did they know this? The company was still active at the time of management selling and if I am not mistaken, there were sample results to be delivered, that would not come til later. Management cannot trade if they are in receipt of material news, in which sample results are or should be, material news.

I will also state, that there were days of trading, that saw mostly Lori,s stock being the only stock that was sold. I watch the trading continuously, and much downward pressure was put on the stock due to managements selling, so in fact, managements selling contributed to the drastic decline in the stock price. The question of support to the company and its stock price comes into play here as well, as does shareholders best interests. Yes, the selling by management may have been a signal to sell, but investors had no idea that Lori or the BOD would be correct in their assumption that the stock price may fall, because there was no news that suggested that a stock price decline was imminent. Projections such as this, only ever really carry a 50/50 chance without educated facts. And for an investor to sell just because they saw management selling, is definitely not prudent or competent on the investors part, whereas they didn,t have enough information as to why the CEO was selling, and under the presumption that the CEO could not sell while in the receipt of material information, investors could not make a reasonable decision to sell, and had to believe that the CEO was selling for personal reasons and not because of any company concerns. So, this was not and should not be considered a sell signal.

You should also remember, that we had, and perhaps still did, til very recently, an interest expressed in the Cueva Blanca (CB)property by a major. Investors were never told if that interest had abated or even became non existent. Perhaps by now seeing that a letter of intent to sell the CB, that interest had disappeared, but investors were never informed. The importance of this to investors is, that a sale to a major of the CB, could have added substantial value to our company, and would have been reflected in the share price upward considerably. For instance, a $30 million offer on the CB, could have easily added .25 cents to the share price, a ~500% increase from here. Not only the benefits would be seen as the value of the sale, but the transaction would further enhance the company,s value by securing its treasury and future at this precarious time. So if management failed to tell us that Buenaventura no longer had an interest in the CB, then I consider that a breach of fudiciary duty whereas by not mitigating risk to investors, they could be held negligent by applicable laws. I should also add here, that by regulators not recognizing this action once brought to their attention, they as well could become negligent, whereas they have the capability to intervene and mitigate further risk to shareholders, as per the power invested in their appropriate agencies. The date that Buenaventura become no longer interested in the CB, should have been disclosed to the investors, and it wasn,t. The BOD had to have known that Buenaventura was no longer interested in the CB, or they wouldn,t have entered into an LOI with Elemento to sell it for a mere $100,000. If we were not exploited in the amount the proposed transaction is for the CB, then we were exploited via our share price because of neglect to inform that an interest was no longer in effect,imo.

IMO