I tend to agree with you Mimi. But let's not forget the other scenario that I posted not long ago:
http://agoracom.com/ir/steliasmines/forums/discussion/topics/677409-intigold/messages/2122107#message
I was going through the circular and a thought came to mind. It may not be plausible, so please give me your thoughts on this scenario:
So we have a 25% shareholder of Intigold, with a special resolution put forth requesting the shareholders to permit him to acquire an additional 1,000,000 shares @.10 (more than double the price on the open market).
These questions come to mind:
Why would she promote for someone to have controlling interest of her company (she has approximately 109,000 shares)
What exactly does Intigold/TTAGIT have that would make Haukedal spend so much money to gain controlling shares of the company?
Could it be possible that Intigold can buy the Peruvian properties from SLI if Lori was no longer the CEO and it would now be considered a non-arms length transaction?
How many shares in Intigold do SLI shareholders have? Not many, I'm sure. It's an easy fix for her to get the properties away from us.
I could be way out in left field on this, but any feedback would be appreciated.
