|To: AMCL |
200, 708 11th Avenue S.W.
FM: James E. Currie
It is my understanding that you participated in a independent audit at the behest of the CDNX and Birch Mountain Resources, and that Birch appealed the ruling due to what they claimed was a apprehension of bias. I understand the DECISION OF THE LISTED COMPANY REVIEW PANEL ruled in favor of Birch in that among other issues the AMCL was not acting as a independent technical auditor and in fact allowed Mr. Robert Holland to dictate the outcome of your report. Would you agree with or deny that finding?
Further, are you still being investigated and by who?
Thank you in advance for your response.
James E. Currie
"errors in the AMCL report etc." , i.e. "With respect, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Holland could or should possess this "vetting" authority on a report ultimately prepared over the signature of the experts at AMCL - particularly strange is the fact that in its written submissions to the Panel, the Exchange highlighted the ability of the Exchange to seek out the assistance of outside experts when it lacked the necessary expertise "in house". If this explained why AMCL was ultimately retained, why would an officer of the Exchange yet think it appropriate to hold some sort of "vetting power".
It is not necessary to proceed further in the discussion of the claim of an apprehension of bias. We repeat that we have received nothing from the Exchange that attempted to undercut, clarify or interpret these various reported events and conversations. In the end, therefore, we conclude that Birch Mountain has satisfied us of the existence of an apprehension of bias and we are not satisfied that it could be comfortably and fairly remedied,"