Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.:
42.750.468 von clownfisch am 14.02.12
20:33:38das wahr der Grund warum mmy 2008 so
abgeschmiert ist und jetzt verklagt mmy die Ms. Sim und ihren mann
auf 50m $

wegen
falsche Behauptungen und was draus wird sehen wir dann
HOPEFULLY MONUMENT WILL WIN THIS BATTLE.
A REPORT POSTED BY STOCKHOUSE FOR YOUR INFO.
A long-running dispute over a gold mine in Malaysia continues to
dog Monument Mining Ltd. (TSX: V.MMY, Stock Forum), shifting the
company’s focus from mining operations to a $50 million defamation
suit that is under way in a Vancouver courtroom.
Monument representatives appeared before B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Richard Goepel in Vancouver this week, seeking damages for alleged
defamation in a case that centres on the junior’s flagship
Selinsing mine, which produced 44,438 ounces gold last year,
generating $56.6 million in revenue.
The defendants in the case are Sim Tze Chui, her Australian husband
Kenneth John Baker and the couple’s Malaysian law firm Balendran
Chong & Bodi.
The dispute was triggered in August 2007 when Chui and Baker wrote
a letter containing allegations that senior Monument officials,
including the company’s Chief Executive Officer Robert Baldock,
were themselves defendants in allegedly unresolved litigation
relating to ownership of the mine.
Ms. Sim asserted in the letter that she was the controlling
shareholder of Asian Mining Services, a company which allegedly
held all of the shares of Selinsing Mining Sdn., the owner of the
Selinsing gold mine.
Sim’s alleged control position, she said, was held through 999 of
the 1,000 issued ordinary shares of Asian Mining, according to
court documents obtained by Stockhouse. Sim went on to say in the
letter that part of the property was subject to a court injunction
that had not been resolved.
When Belandran Chong distributed these allegations to Monument’s
Vancouver underwriter Haywood Securities Inc. and others in August
2007, it was an event that “changed the dynamics of the company,”
said Monument spokesman Richard Cushing, during an interview with
Stockhouse.
After trading at $1.39 in July 2007, the stock tumbled to 50 cents
by January 2008, a move that put severe pressure on the company
during a period when it was buying equipment as it prepared for the
development of an open pit mine at the site.
“We had to finance the mine at that price,’’ Cushing said. Haywood
reacted by placing Monument on its “grey list” for five months.
During that period, the investment firm’s internal compliance
department was on heightened alert, watching for any trading
activity by company insiders who were privy to material information
that had not been disclosed to the public.
Having failed to regain its former heights, Monument was trading at
46 cents this week, giving the company a market cap of $85 million,
based on 184 million shares outstanding. The 52-week range for the
stock is 72 cents and 38 cents.
At current levels, the Monument Mining has been a poor investment
for anyone who paid over 70 cents for the stock in February,
2011.
Existing shareholders face potential dilution as the company works
to complete a $70 million private placement offering of 140 million
units priced at 50 cents each, after securing exchange acceptance
for the acquisition of a 70% stake in a polymetallic project in
central Malaysia.
During this week’s defamation trial, the court heard that Chui and
Baker sent a total of 16 letters to recipients, including directors
of Monument, the TSX Venture Exchange and the company’s Vancouver
solicitor DuMoulin Black LLP.
When Monument responded in July 2008, by filing a writ of summons
in the B.C. Supreme Court, and naming Sim, Baker and Balendran
Chong as defendants, it alleged that the letters were falsely and
maliciously defamatory.
“
Monument had at no time acted fraudulently for failing to
disclose the true ownership, as alleged or at all, of the Selinsing
Gold Mine,’’ the company said its writ of summons. “Nonetheless,
the defendants published the fact that Monument had done so in the
complete absence of any proof or verification, without any
reasonable investigation of the correctness of the assertion and
knowing full well that the assertion was false.’’
Monument went on to say in the writ that the August, 2007 letter
from Ms. Sim and her husband constituted a “slander of title.” The
company insisted that it is the true owner of the mine.
While cross examining Balendran Chong lawyer Vignesh Kumar
Krishnasamy this week, Alistair Wade, the lawyer acting for
Monument, said the letter had failed to mention that Baldock was
actually the former liquidator for Asian Mining. He also attempted
to cast doubt on Sim’s ownership claim, pointing out that Asian
Mining had 50,000 shares outstanding in June 2003, according to
publicly available information in Malaysia.
“Wouldn’t a reader be misled by paragraph three of the letter?’’
Wade asked.
He was referring to Balendran’s assertion that its client Ms. Sim
owns 999 shares (“Controlling shares”) of the 1,000 issued ordinary
shares (“original issued capital”) of Asian Mining Services
(AMS).
“Maybe yes, maybe not,’’ Kumar replied.
Wade went on to ask if it was not misleading to say in the August
2007 letter that Baldock had no authority to deal with ownership or
title of Selinsing Gold mine, Selinsing, or AMS, when he was in
fact a court-appointed liquidator.
Company spokesman Richard Cushing said he has no idea what the
outcome of the trial will be. However, a lawyer who is familiar
with the case said that in his view, it’s highly doubtful that
Monument will be awarded anywhere near $50 million in damages, even
if the company wins the case.
http://www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/MessageDetail.aspx?p=0&…