TSX VENTURE: GNH
Pink Sheets: GOLHF
MONTREAL, June 7, 2013 /CNW/ - As the President of Golden Hope Mines Limited ("Golden Hope" or the "Company"), I cannot allow a smear campaign, based on one- sided opinions and misrepresentation of facts, continue without a response. I simply cannot sit back and witness this smear campaign damage the reputation of our esteemed Directors and myself as well.
Golden Hope has included the shareholder proposal of Mr. Takefman and the other Concerned Shareholders in the Company's Information Circular for the upcoming meeting of shareholders even though the purported shareholder proposal did not meet the relevant legal requirements (the initial shareholder proposal significantly exceeded the number of legally permissible words and the subsequent proposal was submitted after the deadline prescribed by the Ontario Business Corporations Act (the "Act")). Notwithstanding that the Company had no legal obligation to do so, the Company has in good faith attempted to accommodate Mr. Takefman and the other Concerned Shareholders by including the shareholder proposal in the Information Circular. In response to Mr. Takefman's numerous complaints regarding the Information Circular and the shareholder proposal, I would like to point out the following:
- The Company's board of directors has already been increased to seven directors. That part of the shareholder proposal is academic.
- Mr. Takefman has been included as one of the nominees for election to the board of directors. He is eligible for election in the same manner, in compliance with legal requirements, as any of the other nominees, and on no other basis.
- No request was made to the Company to include the names of the other Concerned Shareholders, as required by law.
- Mr. Takefman is not ipso facto eligible to be appointed to the Compensation Committee if he is elected as a director. Any such appointment legally would be implemented as a directors' action, not a shareholders' action. Similarly, the appointment of Ms. Bloom legally is a decision reserved to the directors. It also is untenable to suggest that the engagement of Ms. Bloom on the basis proposed - i.e., for a total of 6½ days - would contribute in any significant way to the business, affairs or strategic direction of the Company.
Unlike Mr. Takefman, Golden Hope is and must be represented by counsel. Mr. Takefman's ongoing demands, accusations, and legal action have cost the Company a significant amount of money in legal fees, time and reputation. Mr. Takefman's version of the judgment in Quebec court is erroneous. The fact is that the judge would not preside over the case, as it is an Ontario matter. If counsel had represented Mr. Takefman, he would likely not have attempted to seek an Injunction in Quebec in the first place.
Despite the fact that the Company has complied with the requirements of the Act in connection with the shareholder proposal, Mr. Takefman refuses to recognize the legal limitations placed on what he believes to be his rights. He has decided, once again, to seek a legal remedy at the expense of the shareholders. In fact, his new action demands that he be paid $50,000 in damages and an additional $10,000 in punitive damages, as well as court costs. How can this action represent an individual fighting for shareholder rights when Mr. Takefman wants money from the Company (which dilutes all shareholders) for himself? This abuse of the Company and the legal system is another clear indication of his waste of the Company's resources. The courts will once again decide and the Golden Hope shareholders will once again pay the price.
Mr. Takefman's campaign has, since its inception, always been advanced on a personal basis. He has attempted to accuse me of lying and trading with prior knowledge of material information. The Company conducted an extensive examination of this accusation and found no evidence of this. I cannot allow Mr. Takefman to taint my reputation with innuendo and false claims.
It is apparent to me that Mr. Takefman will never be satisfied. He will never accept responsibility for purchasing shares of an exploration company, which by definition is high risk. Mr. Takefman has been a disruptive force since the beginning of his campaign against me in early 2012, which he continued against the Board of the Company when the Board would not comply with his demands. The courts and the shareholders of Golden Hope will ultimately make the right decisions. Chances are that Mr. Takefman will not be satisfied with those either.
About Golden Hope Mines Limited:
Golden Hope Mines Limited is a mineral exploration company that seeks to grow shareholder value through the acquisition, exploration and development of potentially large-scale gold and base metal projects suitable for underground and/or open-pit mining. The company's focus is in southeastern Quebec, Canada. The company's claim blocks lie within an area that extends approximately 100 kilometres along the Appalachians of southern Quebec from near Ste-Lucie-de-Beauregard to about 16 kilometres southwest of Beauceville. The Bellechasse-Timmins gold deposit lies 5 kilometres southeast of St-Magloire within the Bellechasse Belt an approximately 18 kilometre long mineralized area. The Bellechasse-Timmins gold deposit includes the T1, T2A, T2B, Ascot/Road gold zones, and the 88 Diorite. The company is also looking to develop the Champagne zone, a partially explored base metal and gold deposit that lies within the Company's Bellechasse Belt claims. A recently completed VTEM survey may identify other similar targets along the horizon. The company is also working to develop other targets within its claim blocks including the FSG gold and base metal target, Chute du Bras, the LG showing, Moose Cliff, and Talon. For further information on Golden Hope Mines Limited please visit www.goldenhopemines.com.
SOURCE: Golden Hope Mines Limited
For further information: