skip to Main Content

PacificOre dissidents demand answers to AGM extension

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -2013-05-21

Mr. Wim Bakker reports

PACIFICORE MISLEADS SHAREHOLDERS ON STATED INTENT TO HOLD AGM “AS SOON AS IT CAN”

The concerned shareholders of PacificOre Mining Corp. were shocked to learn that the directors of the company have applied to hold the company’s annual general meeting outside the legally mandated time frame.

It is a legal requirement of the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) and the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange that all public companies hold their AGM within 15 months of their last AGM. This would require PacificOre to hold its meeting by July 23, 2013. However, the directors of PacificOre have applied to the registrar in Victoria to extend the deadline to hold its AGM until Aug. 30, 2013.

On May 10, just two days after the company made its application to extend the legal deadline to hold its AGM, it publicly stated it intends to call a “meeting as soon as it can.” Either the board plans to hold the meeting as soon as it can, or it wants to extend the deadline to hold the meeting. Shareholders are entitled to an answer and some clarity. While there is plenty of time to hold the company’s AGM within the legal time frame, and no apparent or disclosed reason for an extension, the directors still saw fit to request an extension from the registrar in Victoria.

Further, any change, or attempt to change, a legally mandated meeting of a public company is material information. Public companies are required to disclose material information immediately. This is another example of the current board’s failure to meet basic legal reporting requirements.

Further, the statement by Christian Derosier that he “is keeping shareholders apprised of its activities to the extent that it can” not only demonstrates his arrogance, but his complete lack of respect for shareholders. To date the board’s disclosure record is vague and without substance, incomplete and misleading. One would have hoped adding a couple of directors with some limited experience serving as a director or officer of a public company may have improved the company’s regulatory reporting record, but it seems we have just have more of the same.