Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Allied Nevada Gold Şirket Message Board

SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Docket 768

    by dennishosem 4 hours ago

    The EC attorney's did a fine job. These impersonators of mining executives, need their pay clawed back. This is a fine collection of dead wood. It would be nice to get real management in there.

  • I think Tracy should be referred to our Invester relations Dept. THE EC .All kidding aside I think this is one of the biggest FRAUDS brought before a BK court in awhile I cannt believe what Im seeing DAY AFTER DAY WEEK AFTER WEEK

  • Reply to

    Open Post To "Armpit with eyes"

    by anvvotethemout Jul 17, 2015 1:11 PM

    Makes my skin crawl? These folks have solid brass nads to request what is in docket 768.

    They should be filing motions on pay reduction packages.

    This is more like a band of Gypsies looking for bonus money for doing less work. What a crock!

  • Is Tracy Thom lining up potential shareholders for emergence from chapter 11?

    What does she do all day, except draw a pay check with mining operations suspended. Anyone?

  • Dave from Denver…

    From the day back in 2004 that I first read James Turk’s analysis of the GLD ETF, I had suspected that GLD had been created to take investor money and accumulate a large pile of 400 oz bullion bars that would be used eventually to manage the growing western Central Bank short position in paper gold. Paper gold being the fraudulent, blunt instrument used to illegally manipulate the price of gold.

    GLD’s objective is not to provide investors with the opportunity to own gold bullion by investing in the shares of an ETF. Rather, GLD is designed to track the price of gold. That objective is no different than what is accomplished by a gold futures contract or any of the dozens of numerous gold derivatives available these days. More to the point, futures and derivatives are sold even if the seller does not own the underlying gold bullion needed to deliver on its obligation. They are in practice fractional reserve systems, which allow liabilities for gold to far exceed the quantity of gold owned by the seller of that liability. – James Turk, "Where Is The ETF’s Gold," November 2004

    In 2009 I wrote a reseach report on GLD in which I went through the GLD prospectus line by line and determined that the prospectus was specifically set up to enable the bullion banks – with HSBC suspiciously designated as the custodian of the GLD, as HSBC is the LBMA gold market counterpart in London to JP Morgan’s Comex silver market function – to amass gold in a legal structure that would enable the banks to finance the purchase of 400 oz ounce bars which could be leased or hypothecated via the "backdoor" web of subcustodians. Shockingly, even the trustee and sponsor of the the GLD trust, Bank of New York Mellon and the World Gold Council respectively, are not permitted to inspect the contents of HSBC’s vault without significant notice. And inspection is allowed according the prospectus only intermittently. Furthermore, no outside party is entitled to inspect any gold...cont

  • Reply to

    Docket 768

    by dennishosem 4 hours ago

    Yup just read the objection - it seems like the EC attorneys GET IT. They understand the timing of the incentive plan with the closing of the mine, and they understand that this management is completely inept. Pretty good read here, I don't think the court will uphold this one, we should get this ruling in our favor.

    It also looks pretty bad that management is trying to be such snakes - I hope this sways the judge to end exclusivity and also to allow the EC to file a competing POR.

  • name one key employee that deserves anything . EC filed objection Docket 768 filed 7/27/15 .These people should be wanting to settle before they ask for more.This is the most GREEDY LAZY group of doing nothing and wanting more . I will be SHOCKED if this BK judge grants this . i called and left a message with Ms Patton today Waiting for return call !

  • Reply to

    White Box Advisors/Wolverine

    by anvlawsuit123 Jul 24, 2015 4:51 PM

    Wouldnt been loely to see his replica on him in ANV?Wouldnt that be terrific for us to have another hero as him in here too?Would love to play that role just the Distance Delaware-brussel would make that dificult and expensive too but would be very glad to contribute on any amount necesary to finance as a group of shareholders any one closer.Both cases are very similar and close to each other but in diferent amounts of Bucks.Let me know by Email if we can organise and make something.A lot of ANV'ers are ready and eager for a fight.The reward isnt such a bad one.And I know Willingham isnt here but he would for sure be with us and have our suport if he choose to be a Second Nate.God's Speed on Willy if he took that Fight against those Evil Power on the BOD.

    Sincerely Altini

  • Reply to

    White Box Advisors/Wolverine

    by anvlawsuit123 Jul 24, 2015 4:51 PM

    Anyone seen Nate??

  • Reply to

    White Box Advisors/Wolverine

    by anvlawsuit123 Jul 24, 2015 4:51 PM

    Some times Yahoo make weird Things.Nice to have you on board Anvlawsuit.You remind me Someone I know but even it were that Person would be greate to see you here.You are Experienced and well informed and most probablly honest too.Would have been better to have you rather Willingham on Equity.Congratulations and please stay with us and keep us updating and organising things if necesary in this BAttle between the evil Debtors akka Goliath and Equity the God akka the David.Thanks for everything you did and are doing in the ANV for their Retail holders.

  • Published on Jul 24, 2015

    Refiners are calling jewelers because of lack of supply.

    Youtube...SoT #44 Rob Kirby: We Are Coming Into End of Times

  • Reply to

    White Box Advisors/Wolverine

    by anvlawsuit123 Jul 24, 2015 4:51 PM

    What was that secolton? The message got deleted.

  • Reply to

    White Box Advisors/Wolverine

    by anvlawsuit123 Jul 24, 2015 4:51 PM

    Here is prior history for Whitebox Advisors LLC

    ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-16117

    In the Matter of WHITEBOX ADVISORS LLC Respondent.

    Summary
    1. These proceedings arise out of violations of Rule 105 of Regulation M of the
    Exchange Act by Whitebox, a Minnesota-based investment firm. Rule 105 prohibits selling short
    an equity security that is the subject of certain public offerings and purchasing the offered security
    from an underwriter or broker or dealer participating in the offering, if such short sale was effected
    during the restricted period as defined therein.

    2. On five occasions, from January 2011 through June 2012, Whitebox bought
    offering shares from an underwriter or broker or dealer participating in a follow-on public offering
    after having sold short the same security during the Rule 105 restricted period. These violations
    resulted in profits of $788,779.

    Respondent

    3. Whitebox Advisors LLC is a limited liability company incorporated in Delaware
    with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, MN. Whitebox Advisors LLC has been
    registered with the SEC since January 2006 and provides advisory services to eleven foreign
    private funds and seven domestic private funds. Whitebox Advisors LLC has total assets under
    management in excess of $8.4 billion.

  • According to the docket White box advisors and Wolverine Asset have been purchasing bonds.
    As part of the DIP Facility it looks like they would be trading on insider information.
    Shall we address this in the Court Filings?
    Guardian Capitals 13fs are equally suspicious.

  • Reply to

    Debtors POR and disclosure statement

    by anvlawsuit123 Jul 23, 2015 9:39 PM

    Panicking from what?

  • As background, a special shareholder meeting really isn’t that extraordinary at all. Rather, it is any meeting of the shareholders other than the annual meeting which is required. It can be called by the board, company officers or any holder of a certain minimum of percentage of shares. The company must also provide shareholders sufficient written notice that a meeting is going to be held, keeping in mind the relationship between the new Security and Exchange Commission e-proxy rules time frames and the advance notice provisions with print proxy statements. Under the 1934 SEC Act, a shareholder must own at least 1% of a company’s shares in order to submit a shareholder proposal and the proposal must be submitted to the company no less than 120 days before the company's proxy statement is released to shareholders. Investors putting forth special shareholder meeting threshold proposals are noting the importance of that right for director elections, during restructuring, and during M&A negotiations.

    Corporate governance issues are driving some activist shareholders to call on companies to lower the threshold to call a special meeting. Special shareholder meeting proposals were a hot topic in 2008 and they are back with a vengeance in 2009…but with a twist. Last year, shareholders were pushing for giving 25% of shareholders the power to call special meetings. But what has been perceived as out of control corporate governance practices has some shareholders demanding that bylaws be amended to allow a mere 10% of shareholders to call a special meeting, including investors at Kraft, Time Warner and Pfizer. In particular, special shareholder meeting proposals are being pushed hard by individual “activist” investors like William Steiner who put forward several proposals including one at Home Depot and John Chevedden, who submitted similar proposals at Mattel Inc. and Alaska Air Group.

    But as we well know, shareholders don’t always get what shareholders want…at least, not without a fight. Company management teams often push back against special shareholder meeting proposals. Boards at Dow Chemical and Ford urge shareholders to reject their proposals finding that only requiring 10% of the shareholders to call a special meeting puts the company at risk by giving minority stockholders the right to exert undue influence, while companies like Halliburton and Pfizer oppose similar proposals based on the fact state law already provides shareholders with the opportunity to call special meetings.

  • Reply to

    Debtors POR and disclosure statement

    by anvlawsuit123 Jul 23, 2015 9:39 PM

    The BOD and Creditors are actually the ones panicking.

  • Reply to

    Faith in Humanity...

    by bjsedco702 Jul 24, 2015 4:24 AM

    Counter productive for you - therapeutic for me...

  • Reply to

    Faith in Humanity...

    by bjsedco702 Jul 24, 2015 4:24 AM

    I may well pen a letter to Judge Wrath. It cannot do any harm. I live in the UK. If I lived in the US I would be in jail by now after confronting these idiots!

  • Reply to

    Faith in Humanity...

    by bjsedco702 Jul 24, 2015 4:24 AM

    Lets get together and send Letters to Judge Walrath so she can undertsand more whats going on.If one is close to Delaware would be good to atend a hearing and let our voices be heard against those Thieves and Criminals highjacking our Company and sitting on the BOD

Must Watch
ANV
0.00(0.00%)