"Rex [ the wonder dog ] & Associates were a NO Show at a court hearing this past Friday"

"The more I read what IR is telling investors"


Doubtful if there was a court hearinng on Friday. According to the Stockwatch article, the dissident's lawyer, Scott Turner, filed the petition on November 30, 20112, and there was no need or requirement for Rex Stout to attend that filing (that's why lawyers are hired).


As Stockwatch stated, on 2012-12-06, "Barkerville and Mr. Callaghan have not yet responded". So BGM's lawyer (s) filed a response on Friday. That's no hearing, and there'd be no requirement for either Rex Stout or his lawyer (s) to attend the filing of a response (that's why European residents hire local lawyers).


I can't imagine responsible IR people discussing before-the-court matters in such an incorrect and misleading manner, but the key word there is "responsible"...and whether the purported comment is actual or a figment of the bullboard poster is really immaterial...it's incorrect, misleading and total BS.

The court will weight the petition, the response (if there is one), and will schedule a hearing(s) to discuss the matter, weigh the facts and the law, and render the decision.


IMO, an AGM is a legal obligation, is mandated and must be held within specified limits; majority and all other shareholders have rights (and an obligation to protect their invested capital); and bullboard BS doesn't fare well in the legal system (unless it's being used as fodder for a libel lawsuit).