|"The findings of the forensic investigations of whistle blower accusations by Baker Tilly (Peru) ... disclosed there was no credible evidence of wrong doing or criminal misconduct by Mr. Diego Benavides or other members of the management team. Accordingly his authority to manage the affairs of the Company in Peru has been fully reinstated."|
That statement is from this NR...
...and carries formal official weight. The name "Baker Tilly" carries international standing, as well. It's only when one notices that the NR is dated 7 June 2016 that one begins to wonder just why, out of all the third parties in all the world, Minera IRL is so keen on choosing them every time Minera IRL CEO Diego Benavides comes under formal investigation. Surely it should have chosen another third party in order to maintain as transparent profile as possible. Perhaps the board would care to comment on its selection process for the third party independent audit firm and while doing so, disclose any personal relationship that any of the board may have with any member of Baker Tilly (Peru), be they family or friend level.
In other news, I have received multiple mails from fellow shareholders today, many of them pointing out glaring holes in the mailer sent out to shareholders of Minera IRL today. However one of those mails, from somebody who has no reason at all to help me, has caught my eye. He replied to Chair Perez and his mail and in only one of several points related to fiduciary duty of officers and board, asked for details about the hiring process that saw the arrival of Steven Ngatai as Vice President of Projects, Susan Gabbie as Chief Communications Officer, and Pedro Valdez as Vice President Investor Relations. He writes:
"...how many candidates did the company consider for the positions eventually filled by Gabbie, Ngatai and Valdez? Were the positions advertised? Was a headhunter engaged? I simply don't find it credible that the best possible candidates happened to be people who were already friends with Mr. Diego Benavides."
That is a very good question and now that the board considers the case closed, the board, the MIRL C-suite and its IR and communications departments have no lien on answering shareholder inquiries.
Yours sincerely, "a blogger"