Red Rock Resources Forum

Why does Clockworkorange get upset with voters?

Why not filter them Bittersweet just like you advise all UKOG holders to do to de-rampers there… petty stooping to their level I think you agree

Oh dear Omar is at it again....nothing too difficult to fathom about Kansai Mining...RRR are the single largest shareholder having bought lots of shares during Kansai's suspension...no one ever could explain how a company that can't produce accounts can have any defensible value...and among RRRs deals were a really funny one hidden in the October 1st 2010 IPCM announcement...when I think nearly $500k of RRRs cash changed hands with Kansai...plus Tom Crom's little side deal at a significant premium...but given RRR are the biggest single shareholder in Kansai and Bell and Walsham are both directors of MMM...all very fathomable

Rrr was great value at 1p when pumped with a 61p upside potential...since it hit 19p and Yorkville began shorting it has been a long road of continuous shareholder value destruction and look at the fees, emoluments and administrative expenses..

Let's all remember that MMM the "unreliable partner" in Kenya is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kansai Mining Corp in which RRR is the major stakeholder! Remember Kansai? And IPCM? And no accounts? And the best part of 500k of RRR money that vanished into their coffers without a trace?

Could someone explain how Jupiter seems to generate a profit and only has admin expenses of around 50k per year?

For those interested in maths and coincidences, review all RNSs since 2009 and calculate how much money RRR has raised in dilutive placing sand then review all the annual reports and see how much money has left the business in "administrative expenses"....

Can anyone point to a single venture that RRR has delivered ?

Who were / are IPCM?

ST. JOHN'S PROPERTIES (V.N) LTD. v. VILLA NOVA LTD. (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ROYAL BANK OF CANADA [HIGH COURT - CIVIL SUIT NO. 153 OF 1994 ((Williams, C.J.) January 28, February 22, 1994] (1994) 30 Barb.L.R. 64 Injunction - Application for discharge of injunction - Principles governing grant – Whether there is a serious issue to be tried - Whether damages could be an adequate remedy - Whether an undertaking as to damages would be of value. Facts: On January 28, 1994 the plaintiff obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants until further order from offering for sale and/or selling and/or disposing of and/or dealing with certain items of property, namely, furniture, cutlery and paintings. On or about January 10, 1994 a receiver for the plaintiff was appointed pursuant to a debenture dated December 12, 1988 made between the plaintiff and the second defendant and others. The debenture predated the agreement on which the plaintiff relied for its title. On an application for an order to discharge the injunction - [64] Held: (i) That a matter of law fell to be determined, namely, whether or not the agreement was prohibited, and this raised a serious issue to be tried;(ii) if the items were sold and it was later found that the plaintiff was right in his contention, damages would not be an adequate remedy; (iii) there being no directors of the plaintiff and with the shareholding being uncertain, an undertaking as to damages by the plaintiff would be of doubtful value. Taking all the circumstances into account, the best course would be to make an order for an early trial. The interest of the defendants would be further protected by counsel's undertaking on behalf of the plaintiff not to dispose of the items pending trial. Miss E. Kentish in association with Mr. B.L.V. Gale for the plaintiff. Mr. David Simmons, Q.C. in association with Mr. Ernest Jackman for the defendants. WILLIAMS, C.J.: On January 28, 1994 the plaintiff St. John Properties (V.N.) Limited took outa writ against the defendants, Villa Nova Limited (in Receivership) and the Royal Bank of Canadaclaiming the following relief: 1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the furniture, cutlery and paintings described in the Second Schedule of an agreement dated May 29, 1992 madebetween the plaintiff and Villa Nova Ltd. In this agreement Villa Nova Ltd. agreed to sell and the plaintiff to buy the scheduled items; 2. An injunction to restrain Villa Nova Ltd. and the Royal Bank of Canada from offering for sale and/or selling and/or disposing of and/or dealing with the scheduled items in any manner whatsoever. On the same date the plaintiff, on an ex parte summons supported by the affidavit of Mr. Turney,a partner of R.G. Mandeville & Co., and heard on a certificate of urgency, obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants until further order from offering for sale and/or selling and/or disposing of and/or dealing with the items. It appeared that on or about January 10,1994 Mr. Patrick Toppin of Toppin, Ward and Co. had been appointed receiver of Villa Nova Ltd. pursuant to a debenture dated December 12, 1988 made between Villa Nova Ltd of the first part, Northern Sands Ltd. of the second part, Andrew Ronald Macmillan Bell and Margaret Stephanie Bell of the third part, and the Royal Bank of Canada of the fourth part. It also appeared that the scheduled items had been advertised for sale in an advertisement contained in the Barbados Advocate of January 23, 1994. By summons filed on February 9 and heard on February 16 on a certificate of urgency the defendants are seeking an order to discharge the injunction granted to the plaintiff. The summons is supported by the affidavit of the receiver.[65] Counsel for the defendants refers to two errors in the order that was served on the defendants: first, an incorrect date and second, an omission to state that the defendants could apply to set aside the order. These errors caused no prejudice and need not be mentioned further. I turn to three matters discussed in argument. The debenture, which was executed on December 12, 1988, predated the agreement on which the plaintiff relies for its title to the scheduled items and counsel for the defendants points to clauses 3and 9 (n) which are in the following terms - 3. The Company (Villa Nova Ltd.) hereby charges with the payment and discharge of all money and liabilities hereby agreed to be paid or intended to be hereby secured ... so that the charge hereby created shall be a continuing security on .... Fourthly, the undertaking and all other property and assets of the company both present and future. The charge hereby created ... as regards the premises Fourthly described shall be a floating charge but so that the Company shall not without the consent in writing of the Bank create any mortgage debenture or charge upon and so that no lien shall in any case or in any manner arise on or affect any part of the premises Fourthly described ranking either inpriority to or pari passu with the charge hereby created. 9. During the continuance of this security - (n) the company and Northern Sands shall not without the written consent of the Bank first had and obtained sell, lease, transfer, part with the possession of or otherwise dispose of their said respective properties or any of their properties or assets which shall be required for the efficient carrying on of their business." Mr. Toppin, in paragraph 12 of his affidavit, deposes that the agreement was made without the Bank's consent and characterized it as a device by the plaintiff, the first defendant and Mr. and Mrs. Bell to remove assets from the first defendant and devalue the Bank's security. He continues: 13. I verily believe that the ... sale ... is a sham and not a genuine transaction between the parties and the parties of the ... sale had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the debenture/mortgage ... and the fact that the items described in the Second Schedule were and are charged by the ... debenture/mortgage. 14. I verily believe that the purpose and intent of the said agreement is to put [66] the assets of the plaintiff company beyond the reach of the second defendant as a creditor of the plaintiff and, to that extent, is a disposition or purported disposition to defeat creditors. 15. I am advised by my attorneys-at-law and verily believe that when the plaintiff files its Statement of Claim in this action, defendants will counterclaim for an order to declare the agreement void and of no effect." Counsel for the plaintiff submits that a matter of law has to be decided, namely, whether or not the agreement was one that was prohibited without the Bank's written consent and it is not disputed that this raises a serious issue that has to be tried. The second matter discussed is the nature of the items, Mr. Turney having deposed in his affidavit that antiques which are irreplaceable are included among the items being advertised for sale. The question that follows is whether damages would be an adequate remedy if the items are sole and it is later found that the plaintiff was right in his contention that the agreement was outside the terms of the debenture. They clearly would not, so that I must proceed on the basis that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff. This brings me to the third point: the question as to the plaintiff's undertaking. The point is made that according to the records in the Corporate Registry, there are no directors of the plaintiff, and, according to the receiver's affidavit, the shareholding is uncertain. Therefore, an undertaking by the plaintiff would be of doubtful value. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff points out that in the order the undertaking as to damages is given by the plaintiff's counsel, R.G. Mandeville &Co., not by the plaintiff and the plaintiff through its counsel is also prepared to give an undertaking not to dispose of the items pending trial. The receiver has raised a difficulty which is being encountered by the defendants. Enquiries are being made by prospective purchasers in respect of the real and personal property together. If a more ready sale or a better total price can be obtained by selling both house and contents together this opportunity should be given. My view is that taking all the circumstances into account, including the comparatively simple issue that requires the decision of the court, the best course is to make an order for an early trial. The interests of the defendants will be further protected by counsel's undertaking on behalf of the plaintiff not to dispose of any of the items pending the hearing. An early trial is ordered. Costs inthe cause. [67]