Eric Olson, Chief Operating Officer Minera would like to confirm that Eric Olson, Chief Operating Officer, has not had permission to enter Peru revoked by the Peruvian immigration authorities as speculated, nor has he broken any immigration rules. In common with most expatriates who work in the global mining industry, Mr. Olson works on a rotation system which includes 6 weeks in Peru, and 2 weeks outside Peru.
Then there’s this, what they write about Daryl Hodges’ payments from IRL, direct quotes
The Company and Mr. Hodges have agreed to the following payments in settlement of all obligations due to him: $15,000 a month from November 2015 to April 2017 followed by a payment of $10,000 in May 2017. The Company would like to reiterate that subsequent to the August 27, 2015 AGM, Mr. Hodges has not provided any services to Minera IRL Limited, and is not involved in any matters related to the Company's current situation.
Does anyone else see the glaringly obvious in those two statements? One about getting paid, the other about not doing a scrap of work? You’ll also note that not a word is said about the $500,000 golden parachute payment aside from “it was triggered” and “change of control” because, as noted above, what these fork-tongue merchants don’t say is every bit as interesting as what they do say. So is there still a bonus in place, Daryl?
Anyway, go have a look at the spindoctoring yourself. There’s going to be so much more to get from this work of art.
PS: And one thing that’s really really interesting is the way they haven’t mentioned the name Brad Boland, not in this NR and not in the previous one, either. Oh what fun to come.
UPDATE: Here’s what London-based Shore Capital and its analyst, Yuen Low, had to say about the linked NR today. Interesting how he’s noted the Hodges pay stuff too.
MINERA IRL^ (MIRL, NR, CNP) – Minera soap opera: ex-Executive Chairman
Daryl Hodges will get US$280k payoff, rather than US$680k.
continue to put aside our Dallas analogy while we consider the matter
of former Executive Chairman Daryl Hodges financial arrangements with
Minera. Earlier this month, we called on
the company to fully disclose the details and the company today
emerges that Mr Hodges was indeed paid US$15k/month over March to
September 2015 (US$105k total), which we view as fine on the basis that
his basic salary was US$180k/year.
it also turns out that there really was a gobsmacking US$0.5m ‘change
of control’ clause (i.e. ‘golden parachute’) which was deemed
“triggered” (along with
a full year’s pay as a lump sum) as a result of his being voted of
is attempting to justify this by comparison with Mr Chamberlain’s
terms, which included a similar provision – but we see this as
inappropriate given that Mr
Chamberlain built up the company over many years, whereas Mr Hodges
only joined in 2014.
Minera’s and Mr Hodges’ legal counsels have since concluded discussions on the termination of his contract.
Mr Hodges is now to be paid US$280k, comprising US$15k/month from November 2015 to April 2017 and US$10k in May 2017.
are encouraged that this is significantly less than the aforementioned
US$680k, although we still view US$280k as excessive under the
also reiterated that Mr Hodges “has not provided any services” to it
nor been involved “in any matters related to [Minera’s] current
since being voted of the board.
Minera is still “in the process” of dismissing former interim CEO Diego
Benavides from his positions in the company’s operating subsidiaries,
which could take several months. Minera reiterated that the principal
cause for dismissal was Mr Benavides failure to co-operate with Mr
Hodges as Executive Chairman, and his “resistance to changes” that Mr
Hodges and Minera’s board wanted to implement. In
a press interview, one of Minera’s directors also claimed that Mr
Chamberlain “never saw fit” to propose Mr Benavides for a board
position, and that it was Mr Hodges who elevated him to position of
interim CEO “to try him out”.
understand that Mr Benavides has a very different story, and we call on
Minera to release the minutes of its meetings to put this issue to bed.
We understand also that Minera has to be registered in Peru in order to
be able to properly call for a shareholder meeting of its subsidiaries,
and that this apparently isn’t the case. We therefore also call on the
company to clarify this issue.