IKN

untune that string and hark
08 / 01 / 19

The upcoming Plateau Energy (PLU.v) class action suit

When on March 14th it was revealed* that Plateau Energy Metals (PLU.v) had, by way of an internal administrative error, lost a whole bunch of its concessions, the company had the option to tell the whole, full and unadorned truth. And obviously it didn’t go there because no junior ever does (for more, see the IKN First Law of Mining NRs**). However, it also had the classic Sophistry Option, one of those heavily cossetted and finessed NRs that contains no outright falsehoods, but instead picks the facts it wants to reveal carefully and fails to explain the reality of the given situation, but without recourse to lies or falsehoods.

PLU didn’t do that, though. Instead, the next day PLU.v published a NR which contained several statements that are now revealed to be deliberate falsehoods. We’ve mentioned these before, so to keep it simple (as I try to remember the mental abilities of the audience that needs to get this) let’s just go with the main one. PLU stated this:


“The Company wishes to confirm all of its mineral concessions are in good standing and are 100% controlled.”


This was after PLU was told by the government of Peru that it had lost its concessions. It’s as if PLU thinks that the company is the judge and jury on whether a concession is in good standing. It is not, that is the decision of the government in question. A concession of a country is theirs to give, it is theirs to take away if the rules are broken. In our case, PLU broke the rules (non-payment of concession fees) and Peru told PLU they had lost the concession(s). Now yes sure they can appeal the decision, but that does not detract from its validity. Nor do the circumstances of the infraction; you me the company and general society may consider the decision unfair, but again that does not detract from the facts. 
Perhaps PLU thought it would be able to keep it all under wraps until the appeal went through because they arrogantly assumed they’d win the appeal and nobody would be any the wiser, but for whatever reason we now know the truth. Peru denied the appeal and the decision stands.

Please be clear, you cannot say “The Company wishes to confirm all of its mineral concessions are in good standing and are 100% controlled” when they are not all in good standing. It is a lie. A clear, outright, red-handed, trousers round ankles false statement regarding a material event, a lie designed to prop up its share price. Now the reality has begun to appear and the stock price has begun to react acccordingly, anyone who has lost money on PLU will be able to sue the company (and it’s going to be interesting to see what length of time is used as the class action period). And they will.

*by me, but that is beside the point.

**“The IKN First Law of Mining News Releases: Considering that anything contained in a mining news release is presented in the best possible way for the company in question, any piece of information contained in a NR that comes across in any way negative means the real news and/or events behind it must be very, very bad indeed.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Hello, you are not in a chatroom, you are in my living room. Opposing views and criticisms welcome, insults or urinating on furniture unwelcome. Please refrain from swearing if possible, it is not needed.