Investors Hangout Stock Message Boards Logo
  • Home
  • Mailbox
  • Boards
  • Favorites
  • Whats Hot!
  • Login - Join Now!
Cotton & Western Mining In CWRN
Posted On: 04/07/2013 9:27:09 AM
Post# of 8059
Avatar
Posted By: microcaps
Re: microcaps #3627

Upon Plaintiffs discovering that the mining expense reimbursement had been
removed from ¶ 29 in the final JVA version that was executed by both parties, Plaintiffs notified
Defendants of this error and oversight in the final JVA version, but Defendants refused to
replace the missing provision unless Plaintiffs agreed to a completely revised Joint Venture
Agreement that would have imposed personal liability on officers, changed the parties to the
Joint Venture, added mining properties to be provided by PAN AM, required Plaintiffs to assign
100% of their land/extraction lease rights to GEOTECH, increase the stated value of equipment
ostensibly provide by GEOTECH, and a number of other requirements that were beneficial to
Defendants and detrimental to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs refused to agree to the additional
requirements imposed by Defendants as a condition to restoring the missing provision to ¶ 29 of
the JVA. A copy of a proposed draft of the replacement Joint Venture Agreement [AUG 2011] provided by
GEOTECH, which was never approved or signed by Plaintiffs, is attached hereto as Exhibit E
and made a part hereof.



So apparently no meeting of the minds re the Sept 2010 JV agreement either-which was drafted by Geo lawyers- CWRN apparently didnt have lawyers look over it-if its shown something was missing because it was in previous agreement and from all the facts looks like it should have been included that would be probative-not having a lawyer look over it (while not smart) gives cwrn an extra opening that Geo was overreaching by not including the previous agreement provision on cwrn's behalf-assuming the truth of the allegations
Anyway, no meeting of the minds -courts wont force parties to work together imo when this much confusion between the parties for court would have to fashion an agreement and the allegations indicate an extensive pattern of violations













(0)
(0)









  • New Post - Investors HangoutNew Post

  • Public Reply - Investors HangoutPublic Reply

  • Private Reply - Investors HangoutPrivate Reply

  • Board - Investors HangoutBoard

  • More - Investors HangoutMore

  • Keep Post - Investors HangoutKeep Post
  • Report Post - Investors HangoutReport Post
  • Home - Investors HangoutHome
  • Mailbox - Investors HangoutMailbox
  • Boards - Investors HangoutBoards
  • Favorites - Investors HangoutFavorites
  • Whats Hot! - Investors HangoutWhats Hot!
  • Settings - Investors HangoutSettings
  • Login - Investors HangoutLogin
  • Live Site - Investors HangoutLive Site