|
|
Post by ghowiepharts on Apr 23, 2007 12:30:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by sircharles on Apr 23, 2007 12:36:17 GMT -6
err ... once owned by the company ... should we be worried now? It seems our mineral superstore is reduced to a glass of mineral water at the rate KW's updates are going
|
|
|
|
Post by tazghost on Apr 23, 2007 12:51:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Santasi on Apr 23, 2007 13:06:41 GMT -6
I know I've said this before, but doesn't this just confirm that our claims were transferred to Entourage in exchange for the 45 million shares of ETGMF?
CMKM may not have anything but Entourage does.
Santasi
|
|
|
|
Post by seemkayx on Apr 23, 2007 13:07:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by shelsthing51 on Apr 23, 2007 13:08:01 GMT -6
HMMMM looks like claims are being transfered to another entity as per Peters post from yesterday. imo of course. I'm liking this!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by tenbeers on Apr 23, 2007 13:17:09 GMT -6
I know I've said this before, but doesn't this just confirm that our claims were transferred to Entourage in exchange for the 45 million shares of ETGMF? CMKM may not have anything but Entourage does. Santasi I would agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Santasi on Apr 23, 2007 13:23:46 GMT -6
I know I've said this before, but doesn't this just confirm that our claims were transferred to Entourage in exchange for the 45 million shares of ETGMF? CMKM may not have anything but Entourage does. Santasi I would agree. Thank you Tenbeers!! I thought maybe I was the only person on these boards who remembered that. I also see ETGMF stock went up from .195 to .21 in the last two hours. Santasi |
|
|
|
Post by tonypro on Apr 23, 2007 13:26:08 GMT -6
Am I understanding this correctly? We have released our rights due to default, and lack of finance to keep up our agreement to Nevada Minerals, and Entourage. So I have to ask, Where are our assets going to come from since we've defaulted on, or traded away everything we had? Tony P.  EDIT: ...and oh yes, splitting the magnitude of CMKX shares for the pittance of Entourage doesn't look like a ROI to me. just prevents it from being a total loss. If there's something here I'm not seeing, someone please fill me in. |
|
|
|
Post by Twist Capper on Apr 23, 2007 13:38:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tonypro on Apr 23, 2007 13:46:02 GMT -6
Maybe it's just a show of some of our loss's due to the shorts, that we are going back after...only thing that makes any sense to me.  If it was addressed, and I missed it I apologize, but when they ID the counterfiet shares, and they are canceled---"no matter who has them"---- does this mean a class action from any of us that may be holding them in order for us to collect from the crooks for their wrong doing? Just trying to get a better understanding here of what is actually transpiring. If that's possible for market challenged individuals.  Tony P.  |
|
|
|
Post by armondo on Apr 23, 2007 14:08:17 GMT -6
and right on target. looks like things are moving pretty quick |
|
|
|
Post by golden1101 on Apr 23, 2007 14:11:22 GMT -6
That is what I was thinking. lol |
|
|
|
Post by tightwod on Apr 23, 2007 14:16:08 GMT -6
Am I understanding this correctly? We have released our rights due to default, and lack of finance to keep up our agreement to Nevada Minerals, and Entourage. So I have to ask, Where are our assets going to come from since we've defaulted on, or traded away everything we had? Tony P. EDIT: ...and oh yes, splitting the magnitude of CMKX shares for the pittance of Entourage doesn't look like a ROI to me. just prevents it from being a total loss. If there's something here I'm not seeing, someone please fill me in. Same here, hope we find out sooner than later. Just keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.  |
|
|
|
Post by barfly on Apr 23, 2007 14:18:04 GMT -6
Maybe it's just a show of some of our loss's due to the shorts, that we are going back after...only thing that makes any sense to me. If it was addressed, and I missed it I apologize, but when they ID the counterfiet shares, and they are canceled---"no matter who has them"---- does this mean a class action from any of us that may be holding them in order for us to collect from the crooks for their wrong doing? Just trying to get a better understanding here of what is actually transpiring. If that's possible for market challenged individuals. Tony P. Bingo - It proves damage, thus allowing damages to be awarded |
|
|
|
Post by shoelessjoe on Apr 23, 2007 14:36:18 GMT -6
Maybe it's just a show of some of our loss's due to the shorts, that we are going back after...only thing that makes any sense to me. If it was addressed, and I missed it I apologize, but when they ID the counterfiet shares, and they are canceled---"no matter who has them"---- does this mean a class action from any of us that may be holding them in order for us to collect from the crooks for their wrong doing? Just trying to get a better understanding here of what is actually transpiring. If that's possible for market challenged individuals. Tony P. Bingo - It proves damage, thus allowing damages to be awarded I think some of the time frames from the forfeitages were when trading was pretty heavy in cmkx. This would indicate to me (if i am calculating this right at all) that money raised by sale of shares never received by cmkx to utilize as a company would or that whoever was getting the money for the company deemed it unworthy to pay the obligations to these people for what ever reason. could be info to be used to show the effect of naked shorting against the company as well. Just quick thoughts and all in me opinion. Still not concerned on my end. I'll wait for the pr for that. lol |
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Apr 23, 2007 15:41:39 GMT -6
Love it.......prove what was lost due to the criminal damage! Bout time we got around to standin up for ourselves. hell Buttt,,,,keep in mind that the potential of the agreement with 7025 was much larger than just what entourage took. CMKX had a First Refusal right towards ANY,,,any other claims it obtained. Lookin good.....even if we end up with a very reduced O/S and...............just,,,,,,,,,,,,,cash in the treasury.......  Chris I'm with you Chris. I think I am, any way. If we get the OS reduced significantly and THEN we show valuation...then maybe we make money on the NSS. But this sure is complex. pr  |
|
|
|
Post by smeagol8 on Apr 23, 2007 15:43:04 GMT -6
lol, just read all those documents last nite, OLD NEWS! Is KW intentionally 'restating' all this old news for some reason? OR does he just like to issue 'ceo updates'?
|
|
|
|
Post by marshacmkx on Apr 23, 2007 15:58:38 GMT -6
We just have soooooooo much catching up on info to do. I think Kevin is reminding us about those claims so that we are all on the same page when news comes out this week.
Also, I seem to recall someone hinting about what happens to all the claims when certain contracts mentioned were in default...
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondd on Apr 23, 2007 16:18:06 GMT -6
And, remember that he was in arrears paying the race car folks. Finally worked out some deal to quell their lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Apr 23, 2007 16:47:53 GMT -6
Wasn't there some clause that if Entourage defaulted some how, the claims they have would revert back to CMKX?  ?? Any thoughts? Thanks Wolf |
|
|
|
Post by shroomman63 on Apr 23, 2007 18:49:26 GMT -6
lonewolf, i was just reading the entourage agreement AGAIN LOL, THIS IS WHAT I FIND interesting CMKM agrees that it will abstain from using the voting rights attaching to the Shares until such time as it has distributed the Shares to the CMKM Shareholders under section 4.2 above. What if CMKM gives us money instead of the shares, giving CMKM 45m plus whatever he and his family already own ( not sure how many), making them majority owners and we get the claims back. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction appoints a trustee other than the Trustee, the rights to vote the Shares shall be exercised, for a period of five (5) years, by the President of Entourage and CMKM or its Trustee agree to appoint the President of Entourage as its or their proxy holder at any meeting of shareholders of Entourage. What if the courts appointed their own trustee, why maybe Maheu left, making the shares with voting power attached hence my first part of thinking It is an express condition of this Agreement that any dispute of its terms be brought in the courts of the Province of British Columbia. In the event that any court outside of the Province of British Columbia attempts to assert jurisdiction over the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated, save and except as to section 16, and the Shares, if they have not already been distributed to the CMKM Shareholders, shall be returned to the treasury of EntourageIf you notice the law suits are being filed in Vegas/L.AAlso what if Entourage doesn't come up with ALL the $$$ the deal reverts back so IMO THERE ARE MANY things that can happen for us to get those claims back www.secinfo.com/d1zrpn.zyd.d.htm#1stPageWasn't there some clause that if Entourage defaulted some how, the claims they have would revert back to CMKX? ?? Any thoughts? Thanks Wolf |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Apr 23, 2007 19:53:04 GMT -6
Thanks Shroom,
I had a vague idea but couldn't put the particulars together.
Wolf
|
|
|
|
Post by modracer on Apr 24, 2007 10:44:25 GMT -6
Smeag, Just a diversion Good Luck Longs, Jon lol, just read all those documents last nite, OLD NEWS! Is KW intentionally 'restating' all this old news for some reason? OR does he just like to issue 'ceo updates'? |
|
