We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyMinera IRL

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: idamexusa who wrote (1004)11/23/2021 9:41:52 AM
2 Recommendations   of 1330
As a concerned shareholder do I just vote against all 5 items? Will someone be keeping track of our votes? If so, how do we report our share count and votes? Sorry to put the burden on someone else. I do appreciate everyone's work in trying to do the right thing here.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: DaveAu11/23/2021 10:18:21 AM
1 Recommendation   of 1330
Is anyone attending? I don't like to appoint "Gerardo Pervez, Diego Benavides" as my proxy but unless I have another name, that's my only choice (using

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: JGCGI who wrote (1005)11/23/2021 10:20:39 AM
From: andrewlong
1 Recommendation   of 1330
Can I suggest we all hold off from submission of our votes, we have a few weeks.

Initially, I was going 'against' all items, still may do so, but with the new proposed director of Martin Mount, maybe I will vote for him. I do not know enough about Mr. Mount as yet.

Your suggestion of 'keeping track' is interesting. As far as I understand Mark received and created a list of CS and the amount of shares for each ( to get to that approx 30 million).

First, if anyone else has idea, please share.
Second, I think Mark will respond with ideas (he is dealing with some serious stuff now), we will eventually read his thoughts.

Original strategy was to vote out Benavides, still is.

Our actions going forward:
1) vote against everything, or
2) vote against all except 'yes' for Mount

we have the time before final voting


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: DaveAu who wrote (1006)11/23/2021 10:24:34 AM
From: andrewlong
1 Recommendation   of 1330
just heading out the door.

Off the top of my mind, can that part of the proxy be left blank. (I think so ??)
Anyone else ?


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: ian.s11/23/2021 2:22:42 PM
2 Recommendations   of 1330
The share price is at a 52 week low. Well done Diego.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: mark_ikn11/23/2021 11:25:23 PM
6 Recommendations   of 1330
How are shareholders supposed to make an informed decision on the AGM without knowing the results of the internal inquiry? The directors said they were investigating and that the company uses SAP, the results of financial movements would normally have been known to them within days (at worst)). Instead, September, October and most of November have passed and we still don't know anything, not even a brief summary of their findings. In order to vote correctly, we should have information on this issue.

After all, they want us to re-appoint the person under investigation and now voting has already opened. There's a clear fiduciary duty to complete here, how are we supposed to vote if we are left without key information?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: mark_ikn who wrote (1010)11/24/2021 12:14:23 AM
From: Kiwi Pom
2 Recommendations   of 1330

In my complaint to RTZ I will be insisting not how they vote in the MIRL AGM, but that they do vote and do not take the route of abstention.

If they are really serious about their ESG obligiations, particularly the G, there is no way they can not take a position on the conduct of this board of directors.

I for one will ensure a fuss is raised if they do not vote - how they cast their vote is up to their business ethics.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: mark_ikn who wrote (1010)11/24/2021 12:23:22 AM
From: andrewlong
   of 1330
Well, here we go again, the Board of Directors are not doing their job.

I would of thought that the Board/Company would have postponed the Annual Meeting until their investigation was completed. As a shareholder I may have not liked that decision but ………

I think the Board wants the shareholders to vote against the re election of Benavides and Hema. And then let the new board clean up the mess by dismissing the CEO.

OR Does the current Board feel or even think they have enough votes to keep the status quo. Besides the CS share holdings and I am sure many other dissatisfied holders will vote Benavides off as Director.

I hate to suggest that we all write/emails to MIRL hot line, to OSC, to Rio Tinto, etc
In the case Rio Tinto, if the meeting goes ahead as is, they may never see a return on their 44 million shares. And that would be applicable to us as well.

Any thoughts from you as to how we can put pressure on the Board?
P.S. I just saw the wise post by Kiwi Pom.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: mark_ikn11/24/2021 12:41:13 AM
3 Recommendations   of 1330
All Diego Benavides wants is to be left with the keys to the subsidiaries. They know Chair Perez remains in charge whatever happens in this vote. In my opinion, I suspect their plan is to let whatever happens to happen at the AGM, then re-shuffle the C-suite.

FWIW, I phoned Martin Mount again today, his secretary/receptionist told me he has gone to Mexico and will be there for the next ten days. Also, Mr., Mount was one of the QPs for the recent Kuya Silver technical report on the Bethania project and was on-site on August 13th. Bethania was previously owned by Minera IRL (and sits close to Corihuarmi).

In my opinion, I suspect the directors plan to install Mr. Mount as the new CEO. Mount can then apply the new broom on everyone at MIRL except for Benavides, who stays in charge of the Kuri Kullu and Minera IRL SA subsidiaries (where all the serious corruption has taken place).

However, this means Martin Mount is today in cahoots with the board in their corruption. Again, in my opinion.

The only way to stop this is to force governability to the foreground and make the directors answer the questions they refuse to answer. In my opinion, the only way that happens is to stop the auditors from signing off on the annuals, force a CTO, which triggers a CTO in Lima. Unless anyone here has a better idea.

The lapses in fiduciary duty shown by this board of directors are breathtaking. Every single one of them must be up to their necks in the corruption at MIRL and they must also have a clear idea of how bad it has been. At some point we should simply stop talking to them and file criminal charges. Any reasonable forensic accountant will be able to follow the money and show where it has all gone...all in my opinion. The RCMP is surely the place to start.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: mark_ikn11/24/2021 1:10:33 AM
4 Recommendations   of 1330
We need to get Martin Mount on record.

If he takes a position of responsibility at MIRL, be it director or public company CEO, he must remove both Diego Benavides and his son Felipe (holder of the "magic share" that stops people from examining the subsidiaries) from the wholly-owned subsidiaries and pledge an independent audit of all company books, not just the ones that suit Benavides. If Martin Mount allows the Benavides clan to stay at MIRL his intentions will be obvious...all in my opinion of course.

RTZ can ask those questions of Mr. Mount. We can too. Also, these people should be made aware:

Accountable Mining


Combatting #corruption in mining approvals through stronger transparency & accountability. Led by
, Part of
global movement.

Melbourne, Victoria

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10