skip to Main Content

PacificOre dissidents disagree with Desrosier spending


Mr. Wim Bakker, dissident shareholder, reports


The following claims were held by PacificOre Mining Corp. (registered as Apella Resources) and expired on April 16, 2013: 2182449, 2182450, 2182451, 2182452, 2182453, 2182454, 2182455 and 2182456.

The following 11 claims currently held by PacificOre (registered as Apella Resources) are set to expire on June 18, 2013: 5276704, 5276705, 5276706, 5276707, 5276708, 5276709, 5276710, 5276711, 5276712, 5276713 and 5276714, and the following two claims are set to expire on June 22, 2013: 2354046 and 2354047. One can register at the Quebec mineral titles website, which publicly discloses when the claims are held and their expiry for any company.

The dissidents acknowledge the company may have drilled four holes and the geological exploration team (also known as Christian Derosier, the only elected director) may have relied upon Wim Bakker to raise more money for further drilling, but the concerned shareholders ask, is Mr. Derosier going to ever hold himself accountable for the $1.8-million spent on administrative expenses during his year as a director while spending less than $300,000 in exploration, of which he got $75,527 of that. Maybe, as a member of the board and as vice-president of exploration, Mr. Derosier could have better budgeted to conduct some drilling, rather than relying on others to raise money. Actions and behaviour that point the finger at other people while not being held to account for their own actions is not what PacificOre shareholders want or deserve. As for Mr. Derosier’s information and in response to his finger pointing, Mr. Bakker could no longer raise money that just went into the former chief executive officer’s pocket while all the directors sat around and approved even bigger payments to him.

This is not a smear campaign. These are facts. The dissidents are happy to provide detail and source information to shareholders now and at any time in the future, as they are clearly not getting it from the board.

This lack of attention to detail raises serious concerns about the board’s ability to protect company assets and only reinforces the contention that change is necessary at PacificOre.

If the board was reassured by the growing support for their efforts, why schedule the annual and general shareholder meeting for Sept. 17, the latest date permitted by the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) based on the requisition organized by the concerned shareholders. Further, why publicly state to shareholders you intend to hold the AGM as soon as you can, then hold it as far out as you can based on the requisition? If the concerned shareholders represent a vocal minority, why not get rid of them, by calling the AGM sooner rather than later? One might suggest the board is simply entrenching itself in its position for as long as it can. Any evidence to the contrary would be appreciated by shareholders.

Back To Top