Copper Fox Metals Inc.

Welcome To the Copper Fox Metals Inc. HUB On AGORACOM Copper Fox Metals is a Canadian-based resource company focused on developing the world-class Schaft Creek Project in northwestern British Columbia.

over 10 years ago

in response to CanadaGrant's message

Grant,

You need to be very careful to distinguish "your interpretation" of what management says from what management "actually says". Most new releases and anything published quoting a public company is usually vetted extensively by the said company for the exact reason to avoid litigation. In the case of CUU, some of the claims you have made are more than entirely likely due to your interpretation of what the company has publicly published and not what was actually published. Because an article or quote from a company is likely to be taken in a certain light by the readers does not mean the article explicitly stated the reader's interpretation. In a court of law, if you want your claims to hold up you will have to find evidence to back up your claim. Articles such as the one you provided above, if scrutinized in a legal sense will likely not cut it.

For example if you break down the article you just cited, you just explained it as "It was a direct quote by Stewart published publicly on Mining Feeds on May 1 2011 wherehe is talking about negative copper costs that can only get better with metal prices.

http://www.miningfeeds.com/2011/05/01/elmer-stewart-copper-fox-metals-tsxvcuu"

Your interpretation is that Elmer is talking about negative copper costs that can only get better with metal prices. If this came up in a court of law, your above claim would likely be extensively scrutinized and the above article (alone) would not be enough to support your interpretation. In the article you cited let's take a look at whether your claim is explicitly true based on the content of the article. I believe this is the section you are referring to:

"With a deposit containing copper, gold, molybdenum and silver, please comment of the econimic associated with the project?

The preliminary feasibility study completed in September 2008 showed a -$0.32 to produce a pound of copper net of the sale of the gold-molybdenum-silver credits. This was based on metal prices of $3.12/pound copper, $692/oz gold, $33.00/pound molybdenum and $13.09/ozs silver. The current metal prices for three of the four metals are substantially higher than those used in the 2008 calculations and this increase/decrease will be included in the feasibility study currently underway. The sale of four metals from each tonne of rock processed show the economic impact on the cost to produce a pound of copper which substantially impacts the overall economic performance of Schaft Creek."

The exact response provided by Elmer states that 3 out of the 4 metal prices are higher. It also states that "The sale of four metals from each tonne of rock processed show the economic impact on the cost to produce a pound of copper which substantially impacts the overall economic performance of Schaft Creek." Now here's where things get interesting, the article states that changes in the price of the four metals IMPACTSthe negative cost to produce a pound of copper and the overall economics of Schaft Creek. However it does not explicitly state that if metal prices (or 3 out of the 4 metal's prices) were higher that it wouldIMPROVEthe negative copper cost or the economics of Schaft Creek for that matter. I am willing to bet here that your claim that "he is talking about negative copper costs that can only get better with metal prices." is likely unsubstantiated in a legal sense and that your interpretation of what Elmer is taking about is not explicitly stated in this article. I'm not saying the article can't be read in the way you interpreted it but your interpretation of something that is said does not mean that an article actually said that.

For you to make your above claim you will need to find a statement whereby your claim is explicitly stated by that person. In your example, if you want to make the claim that someone saidA improves or makes B betteryou need to find statements where that person explicitly said that. Statements by that person including wording such asA impacts, affects, influences, changes, alters, correlates to, etc. Bcannot be claimed as having a positive or negative affect and therefore would likely not be evidence of them making that statement.

Again, since every news release will have likely been vetted for wording to avoid exactly this problem I have a feeling you will have a hard time digging up something specifically proving your claim. I would recommend you go back and look at every case where you think someone said something publicly and carefully look at the wording to determine if they actually stated your interpretation. I think you will find in most cases (if not all) that your interpretation of an article or statement is not explicitly stated (likely giving you no legal claim).

With the recent developments I don't blame you for being grump or frustrated with the share price but if you are to make specific claims about CUU (in any negative or scrutinizing sense) make sure there is evidence (not interpretation), otherwise you could get yourself into hot water.

Please note that this does not constitute legal advice, all of this is IMO and I have no legal background nor am I qualified to give legal advice. If you are looking for legal advice on such matters I highly suggest you consult with a professional.

Cheers.