One of our CRSA members (Campbell Resources Stakeholders Association) wrote this post, where he spoke about his intention to participate in a class actions lawsuit (if and only if it becomes necessary). 

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=9985&mn=5730&pt=msg&mid=5378582

CRSA members are not planning any lawsuit anytime soon… we are just building our case for one of the biggest lawsuits in Canadian Business history if certain groups play their hand.

If Nuinsco or any other Mining company announces a merger or takeover at a “low” price and the Board of Directors approves the offer… there will most definitely be a LARGE class action lawsuit filed.  It would probably be multiple lawsuits, in multiple venues.  I think an aggressive attorney would know how to find venue in New York District courts.  

Legal action would not be restricted to “the Corporation” – individuals would be targeted where we felt we could prove a case.  And the legal risks against certain individuals would last for over a decade.  (The NEW Company “finds” the Horizon 3 gold… Bingo!)

And many other parties would get dragged into this.  Anyone outside party (Investment firms, Advisors, geologists, etc.) seen to enabling the Plan (it’s only opinion that a “plan” exists), will face their own legal challenges.  

One way that this ugly scenario might be avoided is for the Board of Directors to agree to operate Campbell Resources according to Published plans.  They can start with the 1997 Copper Rand Feasibility study, which they refuse to release in a public dissemination manner, even though it was released in 1997 to a group of shareholders.  

Heck – that might be a case right there – the selective release of official reports – We have asked in writing that Management release the 1997 study in English, with a properly written summary of the data.

The CRSA will back down and "go away" if Management and The Board start operating Campbell in the manner that their own reports say they are capable of.   We are highly suspicious that deliberate decisions are being made - there are too many coincidences here.

In the 3^rd and 4^th quarters of 2005 Campbell "showed the world" that the Copper Rand mines could be operated with massive profit margins, even with a copper price under $2.00, and a gold price under $500, and the mill operating 3.5 days a week, and producing ore that was still more copper than gold (less profitable ratios) .  There is precedent – go find the 3^rd and 4^th quarter earnings reports, and read the section on Copper Rand.  We know they can do it.

Ask yourself how many people where “in the know” when the Campbell released their 2006 Copper Rand Technical report, and completely excluded the high grade “Horizon 3” area of the mine (there was one little reference on the map, on the last page of the report).  Then you look at the drill results reports, and you see that certain high grade holes were dropped from that report (but reported in earlier press releases).   Then you look at the disclaimers in the beginning of the Technical report, and you see some carefully worded sentences that attempt to cover ass.

So the question is:  who would order that a Mine Technical Report (an exhibit to a Formal Prospectus filed with the SEC) be constructed in that manner? 

And before you get worked up on the “disappeared” Horizon 3, remember that Campbell is not even meeting operating to meet their published goals for Horizon 1 and 2 of the Copper Rand mine.  The 2006 Prospectus described the general areas (ore grades) they would be mining from right now, and the expected Production rates.

I don’t believe they are even doing that.  Campbell is not even operating according to the newer (downplayed) operating plans published in the 2007 slideshow that is on the official company website right now.  The 2007 numbers are far below the 2004 numbers (in the "underground" company slideshow we have on the shareholder website), and they are not even meeting the 2007 numbers. Look at the excuses about “broken equipment”.

And readers of this message board can rest assured that this legal challenge would occur with or without "Benson" leading the way.   The CRSA is now large enough, with enough members, with enough communication, to organize this challenge without “Benson”.

All you mofo’s up there in Canada who think this is all about “Benson leading”, you are flat out wrong.  We have private discussions about this all the time, where we share ideas and strategy points with each other.

Here’s a big smoking gun

Everyone should be aware that 12 - 18 months ago, Shareholders asked Mr. Fortier in writing to put in Shareholder Rights Protection Plan. Mr. Fortier has agreed to discuss the issue with the Board (he agreed in writing), but nothing was ever done. 

But the “smoking gun” is that Campbell’s Management and Board knows exactly:

- How to set up such a plan

- And what the prudent threshold is (where a Board would be concerned about takeover)

They know this because Nuinsco set up a plan for themselves in 2007.   Nuinsco though it was prudent to protect themselves from a possible takeover, can you believe that?

From a post many months ago:

 “One important incident is how Management has refused to put in place a Shareholder Rights Plan (different from a Shareholder Rights offering).  A Rights plan would help prevent a hostile takeover or merger.  Mr. Fortier has had a bunch of lame excuses, and flat out refused to do this, even when there is precedence: Nuinsco recently adopted such a plan for them. 

Since two of Nuinsco’s top executives sit on Campbell’s board, you can be sure that the Campbell Board understands the issue.  Yet they refuse to pro-actively protect themselves from a takeover.  Very suspicious.  “

So the legal argument would be that we can prove that the Campbell’s Board understands the issue (because Holmes and Galipeau understand), understand the possibility that they might be taken over, and understand how easy it is to protect shareholders.  And they refused to protect themselves.