StockIgloo

331 million shares voted

265 million FOR the arrangement ….52 million against

as far as the majority of the minority

152 million voted

52 million against

Deal is done…..Al is there going over the ballots.

PC

66 2/3% of all shareholders needed to pass the arrangement

50% + 1 needed to lock the majority of minority shareholders 

I agree on the 54 million Finskiy/Scola transfer.  However…were they excluded? 

331 million shares voted.  152 voted for MoM.  This means that 179 million shares were excluded (i.e. Finskiy etc.)  from the MoM vote. 

I had calculated 113 million ineligible

Finskiy = 111,913,215

Scola = 992,857

McNutt = 300,000

Sheridan = 50,000

TOTAL = 113,256,072 shares excluded

…So perhaps the 13 million held by Yanchukov and the 56.5 million transferred shares were excluded after all.  Since 113+13+56.5=182.5 million???

Unfortunately the math that Doc is using is what seemed apparent to me as well.  Relic, you may see this differently.

I will be debriefed this afternoon by Al Wiens and can give you a better indication on what makes up the votes.  He was still at the meeting going over ballots when we last spoke. 

We needed about 77 million votes against in the MoM vote.  Al's early indication is that there are no improprieties in the ballots but I won't know for a few more hours as to his legal opinion.

I'm sure we will hear from others at the meeting in short order.

All the best

PC

From the conversation I had, 152 million shares voted in the MoM vote…of that total…..52 million voted against.

I hope this is clearer..

Sorry for the confusion

PC

Doc counted 113 million illegible for the minority votes

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So does it mean:-

1) 331 million voted

    265 million FOR the the arrangement….52 million AGAINST

    means 265/331=80.06% voted FOR the arrangement

2) Majority of the minority

    265-113(illegible vote)=152 million voted FOR?

    52 million voted against

    means the FOR votes has more than 50%+1 vote

PC said 152 million voted (for the majority of the minority votes?) n 52 million voted against .

Means 100 million voted FOR? implying it still exceeds the 50% +1 votes ? 

 According to Computershare (the company’s registrar and transfer agent), a total of 331,972,157 shares were voted at the meeting (about 75.4% of the issued and outstanding). The breakdown was as follows:

1) Reduction in stated capital (66.7% required to pass)

For:        278,459,833 (83.88%)

Against:  53,512,324 (16.12%)

2A) Approval of merger (66.7% required to pass)

For:        264,776,920 (83.84%)

Against:  52,707,984 (16.60%)

2B) Approval of merger (majority of minority required to pass)

For:        152,863,595 (74.36%) – (Finskiy/Scola shares excluded)

Against:  52,707,984 (25.64%)

Good Day All!

Just got back from the meeting, the numbers that positive carry posted above are correct as stated, unfortunately the total "NO" votes did not carry the day, it's too bad that the Fair-For-All votes switched sides, it would have made it very close.

The only CMM representatives were Campoy, Sheridan & Lamarque, Major did not show, the meeting was very quick, no time to ask any questions, not that they would have been answered any way.

A question was posed to some one there regarding the transfered shares and why were they voted for the MoM, plus if we could get a list of the shareholders with the numbers of shares, I was told that they were not sure if those shares were even voted, plus he told me that the onus was on me to identify and point out those shares (arrogance at it's best).

I've got to go out right now, I'll talk further later.

NSX001

I haven't seen anything about the number of shares that dissented.  Does anyone have that information?  12% of issued and outstanding shares voted AGAINST, so if even half of those shares dissented, there were over 5% dissenting. 

I am pretty sure that WTG didn't have to kill the arrangement if >5% dissented – I think it was only an option WTG could take if the dissent number was high – but I am curious about the count.  I sent in my dissent notice, so I know they should have said there were at least 214,250 shares dissenting (0.05% – Yay!!).

Trying hard to see the humour,

Peachy

I just received a Love letter from the legal offices of Mc Millan, (Century Mining,) Informing me they will not accept my letter of Dissent, as it was not sent from " a registered share holder," My Broker, TD Ameritrade. I am consulting Corporate Actions Dept. Anyone else can expect the same love letter unless they are the "Registered shareholder," not the beneficial shareholder. I am just informing everyone of what we can expect from Century, as they are fighting their Share Holders Tooth and Nail! Continue the Fight, 9/28, We Will Win!

Maybe, though, it is a blessing in disguise and you should just sell? Considering that who knows what 'fair value' will be.

190. Right to Dissent

Objection

(5) A dissenting shareholder shall send to the corporation, at or before any meeting of shareholders at which a resolution referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is to be voted on, a written objection to the resolution, unless the corporation did not give notice to the shareholder of the purpose of the meeting and of their right to dissent.

Notice of resolution

(6) The corporation shall, within ten days after the shareholders adopt the resolution, send to each shareholder who has filed the objection referred to in subsection (5) notice that the resolution has been adopted, but such notice is not required to be sent to any shareholder who voted for the resolution or who has withdrawn their objection.

Demand for payment

(7) A dissenting shareholder shall, within twenty days after receiving a notice under subsection (6) or, if the shareholder does not receive such notice, within twenty days after learning that the resolution has been adopted, send to the corporation a written notice containing

(a) the shareholder’s name and address;

(b) the number and class of shares in respect of which the shareholder dissents; and

(c) a demand for payment of the fair value of such shares.

Share certificate

(8) A dissenting shareholder shall, within thirty days after sending a notice under subsection (7), send the certificates representing the shares in respect of which the shareholder dissents to the corporation or its transfer agent.

So, the first thing to do, filing a notice of dissent, is simple. You use plain language to declare that you object to the resolution (the merger resolution, in this case), and that you wish to dissent. If the resolution passes, you have 20 days to send in a written notice demanding a payment of fair value for your shares. Within 30 days after that, you have to send in your share certificate(s). So, you have up to 50 days after the resolution passes to obtain the share certificate(s) and to complete the submission. (I say “up to 50 days”, because each of the clocks ticks off separately. If you file your demand for fair value after only 5 days, the 30 day clock to submit the share certificate starts right then.) All submissions should be by registered mail, as you may need to verify receipt of the submissions. You should also make sure your brokerage is aware of your intention, so that they can freeze your shares until you decide whether to follow through.

During that 50 day period, you can change your mind, and decide to accept the company’s offer. (This actually happens quite frequently.)

Shares held in tax sheltered accounts cannot be filed in dissent, as you cannot obtain the share certificates without withdrawing the shares from the sheltered account. The tax-sheltering structure is a trust entity that makes you the indirect owner of the shares. It may or may not be worthwhile to pull shares out of a TFSA, but I sincerely doubt that it would make sense to pull them out of an RRSP/RESP, unless you can replace them with cash at the then current market price.

Lar

Is Lar part of the CSC?

What about Hoch & Vos?

terrancekeean – You may want to call TD Ameritrade and ask them how in a merger like this can street stocks desent, which is exactly what you wanted to do. Explain the time-line you were up against vs. the amount of time required to put the stocks in your name and the size of the document that needed to be digested. In short, it was impossible to do this. 

Given the facts, you may get a favorable response from TD Ameritrade.

This is my opinion blah, blah, …..blah.

bigjohn37 said:

Nt300, I wrote to them, and asked if they'd participate in a Class Action case.

That is great, hope they join the fight…….

Gilmourr, I'm still waiting for a member of the CSC to come out and explain to us their reasoning behind supporting the merger.  Remember, they didn't want to kill the deal, all they wanted was a better deal.  The least they could do was to explain to us their reasoning. 

I think a CAL may be settled for no one's benefit in my grandchildren's time. If I ever have any grandchildren.

Me too Maria. Granted, it will be a pretty shitty explanation, but that is the least I should get.

Here is a QUOTE by PC:

For future reference you can write all the letters you want to all the regulators in the world, but until you file a formal complaint in a formal fashion and pay a fee of $5,500.00 per regulator there will be no investigation.  There has been no criminal activity contrary to what is being touted.  There are irregularities and that happens in every single transaction on any business deal.  If you don't pay for the investigation it won't happen.  That means paying in BC in AB and in Ont.

Firstly I would like to thank Positive Cary, Carib and Relic for there hard dedicated work in trying to fight the theft that took place within our company. Because of you three, I learned so much about stock trading as a whole. I would also like to thank bigjohn37, Doc, Fredericton and PayDay (Sorry if I missed others) for there hard dedicated work in trying to help other minority shareholders understand about stock trading, DD's, and so on…

BUT there's something that really stuck me upside my head, after reading something PC wrote.

Please refer to the above quote. Did the CSC know about this filing of a Formal complaint and paying the regulators to do something? Personally it sounds to me all of those NR's, PR's and such along with the many upon many e-mails and letters to the regulators basically went unanswered. This IMFO is complete incompetance and our Regulatory system is completely BROKEN…..

I mean I am almost 100% sure if we knew about this information most if not all of us would have easily raised the $5,500 or what every the cost to ensure the REGULATORS disect this merger rip-off and hopefully cancel it.

Please by all means correct me if I am wrong….

Ron S., don't sell a good, strong Class Action Lawsuit short. Sure a CAL can go on for a relatively long time, and the lawyers will make a lot of money out of it (on both sides), but at least the wrongdoers will pay for their misdeeds. And they will have to make statements under oath.

Naturally, participation of minority CMM shareholders in a CAL project will be voluntary. I will have more to say about a prospective CAL case next week.

Personally, I am a stron believer in justice & fairness, as I am sure most minority CMM shareholders are. 

Yes, Ron S; Proko.. would be able to fund a lot of things with his billions. But both him and his buddy, Max, like to use other people's money when there is any risk involved. They are addicted to OPiuM (i.e. Other People's Money)!!!