I question why there may have been penalties realized in paying for the Peruvian releases this year, or why the money was not there to pay for them?
It appears from the Oct 2012 Financial statement, that the total cost for renewing ALL the Peruvian properties would not be over $1,894 for the June 30 th/ 2013 payment. It is a very small fee and the company had enough money in the treasury then, to pay this and secure the properties in good standing. So, if this low fee was paid for 2013, then should there be NO penalties and should the fees have only been little for 2014?
I understand that there is a two year option that the Peruvian Government allows for concession payments, then they are paid with penalties. But, the Hastmans offered $90,000 to secure the properties in early 2013, was vigorously fought against in court by Lori, and a news release put out that the properties were in good standing until June 2014. Well, the properties couldn,t have been paid for in 2013 if they lapsed this year 2014, because of the 2 year grace option that seems to be encrypted with the Peruvian laws pertaining to this type of transaction.
Lori put out a news release, (below), stating on May 31 that the properties were in no immediate danger of lapsing and assuring they were good til 2014. BUT, had she paid for the properties then, it should have put them in good standing UNTIL JUNE 2015.
In short, Lori passed up the chance of securing the properties for perhaps years and perhaps INTENTIONALLY did not pay them, while enough was in the treasury to do so. It is my understanding that $90,000 was offered by the Hastmans to secure the properties, at around $1,900 per year, this trust fund may have provided security for the properties for several years. For a CEO to jeopardize a companies assets in such a manner, then leave them lapse, may suggest "intent". Then, the question may be asked; "why?"
We saw the Cueva Blanca sold/dispositioned shortly after the payments were due in 2013 which could have easily assured payment for the other properties as well.
This may be considered incompetence, not in the company,s best interest, endangering shareholders main asset, a breach of fudiciary duty towards the company, and perhaps more. How can an Exchange and securities regulators condone such actions that steadlily puts SLI investors into harms way?
St. Elias Mines Ltd. – Peruvian Properties in Good Standing
Vancouver, B.C. May 31, 2013 St. Elias Mines Ltd. (SLI-TSX-V) (the “Company”) advises that it has received another application from Darcy and Gilby Hastman, dated May 27, 2013, which will require further time and expenses to be incurred by the Company. This new application seeks to restrict the Company’s activities in a variety of ways, pending the determination of the Hastman Petition on its merits. The Company intends to contest the application.
In a news release distributed on May 29, 2013 by Gilby Hastman in which he announced the new application, it was suggested that payments are required to be made imminently to ensure that St. Elias’ interests in its Peruvian properties are renewed. St. Elias wishes to clarify information with respect to the status of its Peruvian properties. St. Elias has until June 2014 to pay the required vigencias (annual government fees) as well as any outstanding penalties, if any, with respect to its Peruvian properties.
For additional information on St. Elias and its projects, please visit us at www.steliasmines.com or call
1-888-895-5522 (toll free US and Canada) or contact:
ST. ELIAS MINES LTD.
(signed “Lori McClenahan”)
Lori McClenahan,
President
