As the rumour goes, but may quite easily be backed by factual documentation, the CEO fought the $90,000 trust fund that the Hastmans offered to retain the Peruvian properties in good standing. She did this by saying the properties were in good standing until 2014, but ignoring the fact that a trust fund could have remained in place, if not needed in 2014, it could have been utilized in 2015 or 2016, or in the Now. I may add, a trust fund well justified at this very time, may put all the properties in the shareholders hands should current management wish to cooperate and keep the shareholders best interests ahead of any interest they may have. A "right of first refusal" may be a mechanism for in which shareholders can retain the property stature.

And to top that up, if the Tesoro is still the "flag ship" property, it requires shareholder approval to be sold, or in a dissolution process, would be the last asset sold, as a last resort.

In the interest of shareholders and the public, in respect to the integrity of the markets, I believe there is more than enough evidence to substantiate removal of current management under non confidence, among many other applicable provisions/clauses.

Interesting.....