Post by fastwalker on Oct 7, 2005 10:19:47 GMT -5
Hi Everyone. - Yes this is a long post.
Needless to say the SEC has done its home work pretty well. Sad to say, but I don’t think anyone could have prepared a better brief than what Hakala put together. I don’t like the way she interprets what the Judge had ruled on concerning CMKX’s position of filing a fraudulent Form 15, acting with a high degree of scienter, and that their actions were egregious, but to make an argument is all kind of irrelevant without the company furnishing the filings.
Most of us understood that the company had a lot of hard work ahead of them and information to provide coming off of Judge Brenda’s initial decision to revoke and that the task ahead of the company would be great if they were going to be successful in stopping a revocation. Most agreed that with the additional time that an Appeals Process would provide, Urban, Mr. Maheu, Mrs. Herring, Mrs. Buck, Donald Stoecklein, and company would be able to at the very least provide an auditable rough draft to present in the company’s defense. We are still looking for its appearance and it still could come. I would think that apart from something tangible being delivered to the Commission, there is a very good chance that the revocation is going to be finalized.
If so, this is not the end for CMKX nor is it the end for the CMKX shareholders, it would however be an end to the current freedom that CMKXers have to trade their shares openly in the market place. [Exceptions can be made, but they are rare]. This does not make your shares “worthless” as many claim, for the value in your shares is not hidden in the tradability of the shares, but within the potential and ability of the company to bring value to your shares by increasing and developing our current and future assets, generating revenue, and negotiating settlements, mineral deals, etc… Just because the shares are not “tradable” in the market place does not mean that you can’t receive cash or share dividends or payments on the progress the company is making, including a possible and hopefully probable settlement to the NSS position.
Many have said that “no good thing can come out of a revocation” and I would like to submit a rebuttal to those statements. I would like to say first that a revocation would be unwelcome, a hindrance to the convenience of the shareholders trading, a black eye to the company and management, and a red flag to any companies possibly looking to invest in the development of CMKX’s assets. But…
A revocation would do one major thing…It would stop the free trading of CMKX shares and would freeze the NSS position to where it could no longer be covered or increased in the market place. It is a possibility that with a frozen NSS position in the market place and the company still developing our assets, acquiring new ones, generating future revenue from the American Mine Shaft, our United Carina 40%, our mineral rights in Saskatchewan, etc… One cash dividend to shareholders could send a message to “shorty” that would initiate or help force the market to move for a buy out of all CMKX shares through some entity or another. Every time the company would issue a dividend to the legitimate shareholders, “shorty” would have to cover the NSS shares being held by shareholders and shorty would have no hope of being able to gather these NSS in because there is no legal market that can be made on them. They would not even have any hope of recouping their losses by moving the PPS because there would be none. Thus a reasonable solution for “shorty” would be to make an offer to buy all shares of CMKX for xxxxxx amount of dollars – NSS position and legitimate combined.
Management could reluctantly negotiate and accept a complete buyout offer with the exclusion of the assets and mineral rights that would be transferred over into another company – possibly Ron Casavant’s CIM - with a provisional share distribution of CIM having already been made to shareholders of record from a year ago allowing the shareholders to follow the true value of the company and CMKX’s woes go away. [Yes, I would hope that a share distribution would be made available for new shareholders that have joined CMKX since the CIM dividend of a year ago and I would think it could easily be included].
If this scenario develops I would expect a possible immediate buy out by “shorty” of CMKX shareholders positions in an effort to stop the bleeding brought on by potential revenue or dividend disbursements from our assets. Remember that Maheu and Urban said they were focusing on “shareholder value, developing the assets, and acquiring new claims” and went on to specifically mention that they were not going to let the “regulatory issues detour them from their focus” and it appears they didn’t. So my hopeful guess is that they were busy working on building “shareholder value, developing the assets, and acquiring new claims” which would be a underlying asset to seeing this scenario unfold, IF a revocation were to take place.
The monies generated by such a buyout would go directly to the shareholders holding in electronic/NSS form and would be mailed out to the Certificate holders at the receipt of the signed sealed and delivered certificates.
Be sure and protect your CMKX holdings by keeping an updated broker statement, or preferably holding certificates. If a revocation takes place you can still request certificates on your CMKX electronic shares. Non tradable, does “not” mean they can’t be requested and transferred into your personal care by certificates. Usually certificates are paid first and are acceptable in a court of law as proof of ownership of a particular security if things get weirder than they already are. Broker statements are not acceptable regardless of opinion. Check and see that the state and federal laws make no provision for the use of a broker statement being acceptable as “proof of ownership”. I will not debate this issue again, but those that disagree should try to find one case where a broker statement has been admissible in court as proof of ownership or a state or federal law that states it is valid proof of ownership and admissible in a court of law. Happy hunting. A broker statement is a record of a contract that you have made with your broker that obligates your broker to provide you with the securities you purchased, but there is nothing to say or prove that your broker successfully accomplished his objective. That is what the cert does for you.
“If” the revocation takes place “and” CMKX is rendered non tradable, IMHO, certificates work best for all of us. Seeing we have a huge NSS position already, the transfer agent cannot possibly deliver on all requests for certificates, so it becomes first come first serve and the brokers fail to deliver on certificates they can’t hope to ever receive as there would be no more and seeing that the security is no longer trading in the market place. No way to cover, no where to hide, and 50,000 plus shareholders wanting their certs would or could, IMHO, initiate action and a possible buy out offer as a once for all resolution.
Just trying to point out a possible “silver lining” in the midst of the cloud.
Success is still at hand. These are all just my opinions and I ask that you treat them as such.
Thank you.
Dr.D
fw
Needless to say the SEC has done its home work pretty well. Sad to say, but I don’t think anyone could have prepared a better brief than what Hakala put together. I don’t like the way she interprets what the Judge had ruled on concerning CMKX’s position of filing a fraudulent Form 15, acting with a high degree of scienter, and that their actions were egregious, but to make an argument is all kind of irrelevant without the company furnishing the filings.
Most of us understood that the company had a lot of hard work ahead of them and information to provide coming off of Judge Brenda’s initial decision to revoke and that the task ahead of the company would be great if they were going to be successful in stopping a revocation. Most agreed that with the additional time that an Appeals Process would provide, Urban, Mr. Maheu, Mrs. Herring, Mrs. Buck, Donald Stoecklein, and company would be able to at the very least provide an auditable rough draft to present in the company’s defense. We are still looking for its appearance and it still could come. I would think that apart from something tangible being delivered to the Commission, there is a very good chance that the revocation is going to be finalized.
If so, this is not the end for CMKX nor is it the end for the CMKX shareholders, it would however be an end to the current freedom that CMKXers have to trade their shares openly in the market place. [Exceptions can be made, but they are rare]. This does not make your shares “worthless” as many claim, for the value in your shares is not hidden in the tradability of the shares, but within the potential and ability of the company to bring value to your shares by increasing and developing our current and future assets, generating revenue, and negotiating settlements, mineral deals, etc… Just because the shares are not “tradable” in the market place does not mean that you can’t receive cash or share dividends or payments on the progress the company is making, including a possible and hopefully probable settlement to the NSS position.
Many have said that “no good thing can come out of a revocation” and I would like to submit a rebuttal to those statements. I would like to say first that a revocation would be unwelcome, a hindrance to the convenience of the shareholders trading, a black eye to the company and management, and a red flag to any companies possibly looking to invest in the development of CMKX’s assets. But…
A revocation would do one major thing…It would stop the free trading of CMKX shares and would freeze the NSS position to where it could no longer be covered or increased in the market place. It is a possibility that with a frozen NSS position in the market place and the company still developing our assets, acquiring new ones, generating future revenue from the American Mine Shaft, our United Carina 40%, our mineral rights in Saskatchewan, etc… One cash dividend to shareholders could send a message to “shorty” that would initiate or help force the market to move for a buy out of all CMKX shares through some entity or another. Every time the company would issue a dividend to the legitimate shareholders, “shorty” would have to cover the NSS shares being held by shareholders and shorty would have no hope of being able to gather these NSS in because there is no legal market that can be made on them. They would not even have any hope of recouping their losses by moving the PPS because there would be none. Thus a reasonable solution for “shorty” would be to make an offer to buy all shares of CMKX for xxxxxx amount of dollars – NSS position and legitimate combined.
Management could reluctantly negotiate and accept a complete buyout offer with the exclusion of the assets and mineral rights that would be transferred over into another company – possibly Ron Casavant’s CIM - with a provisional share distribution of CIM having already been made to shareholders of record from a year ago allowing the shareholders to follow the true value of the company and CMKX’s woes go away. [Yes, I would hope that a share distribution would be made available for new shareholders that have joined CMKX since the CIM dividend of a year ago and I would think it could easily be included].
If this scenario develops I would expect a possible immediate buy out by “shorty” of CMKX shareholders positions in an effort to stop the bleeding brought on by potential revenue or dividend disbursements from our assets. Remember that Maheu and Urban said they were focusing on “shareholder value, developing the assets, and acquiring new claims” and went on to specifically mention that they were not going to let the “regulatory issues detour them from their focus” and it appears they didn’t. So my hopeful guess is that they were busy working on building “shareholder value, developing the assets, and acquiring new claims” which would be a underlying asset to seeing this scenario unfold, IF a revocation were to take place.
The monies generated by such a buyout would go directly to the shareholders holding in electronic/NSS form and would be mailed out to the Certificate holders at the receipt of the signed sealed and delivered certificates.
Be sure and protect your CMKX holdings by keeping an updated broker statement, or preferably holding certificates. If a revocation takes place you can still request certificates on your CMKX electronic shares. Non tradable, does “not” mean they can’t be requested and transferred into your personal care by certificates. Usually certificates are paid first and are acceptable in a court of law as proof of ownership of a particular security if things get weirder than they already are. Broker statements are not acceptable regardless of opinion. Check and see that the state and federal laws make no provision for the use of a broker statement being acceptable as “proof of ownership”. I will not debate this issue again, but those that disagree should try to find one case where a broker statement has been admissible in court as proof of ownership or a state or federal law that states it is valid proof of ownership and admissible in a court of law. Happy hunting. A broker statement is a record of a contract that you have made with your broker that obligates your broker to provide you with the securities you purchased, but there is nothing to say or prove that your broker successfully accomplished his objective. That is what the cert does for you.
“If” the revocation takes place “and” CMKX is rendered non tradable, IMHO, certificates work best for all of us. Seeing we have a huge NSS position already, the transfer agent cannot possibly deliver on all requests for certificates, so it becomes first come first serve and the brokers fail to deliver on certificates they can’t hope to ever receive as there would be no more and seeing that the security is no longer trading in the market place. No way to cover, no where to hide, and 50,000 plus shareholders wanting their certs would or could, IMHO, initiate action and a possible buy out offer as a once for all resolution.
Just trying to point out a possible “silver lining” in the midst of the cloud.
Success is still at hand. These are all just my opinions and I ask that you treat them as such.
Thank you.
Dr.D
fw
