The plaintiffs (NovaGold shareholders) don’t need to win.  What benefits us is the precedent.  This case shows that a large experienced law firm (with shareholder class action experience) has been able to determine “venue” in New York District Court, for a Canadian company.  The CRSA was never certain that was possible.

The thing to watch is whether the NovaGold lawsuit survives any motion (by NovaGold’s attorneys) to force a change of venue to Toronto.   I doubt that would be successful.

With Campbell, our potential legal case is probably “20 times more powerful” (that’s just shareholder opinion).  Our case shows incidence, after incidence, happening over a 2 ½ year period.  It’s beautifully documented, including email replies from Andre himself.

It’s not just “downplay”, it’s “downplay" at 4 mines at once, and Reserves, Resources, Drill results, and production capability, which have all been reported in a (in my opinion) misleading (downplayed) manner.   Then you have all of the little comments by Andre himself.  Then we have the “grabbing of the Rights” in 2006 (see the shareholder website for this story).

Carefully study that case that the plaintiff’s (shareholders) law firm is making.  They are establishing that there is actually standard of truthfulness and accuracy that Management must follow.   It might be called “Sarbanes Oxley”, or it might extend beyond that (we don’t know – we are not attorneys, and we could use some help).

For example, reporting the Joe Mann Gold Resource at ZERO (as was done by Campbell in a recent report), when earlier reports show a very large Gold Resource… that would be highly questionable in my opinion. 

Especially if Campbell's “partners” are putting out reports that they think they know where the gold is located, and how much, and how profitably it could be mined.  This really happened – read the posts on the board.

Did Campbell issue a press relapse saying that “this XYZ Resource has been determined to not really exist by this technical study on this date”?  I am sorry, but resources are resources, until they are reclassified with reason in a public filing.  

Proven Reserves with a Feasibility Study (like the 1997 Copper Rand study) have an even higher level of certainty.  A Feasibility study proves the economic viability of an ore reserve, and documents an operating plan to exploit the Reserve.

Canadian law was probably not broken – that’s why somebody could call Campbell Management “careful and clever”.  But criminal law and civil (shareholder) lawsuits are two different things.  And United Sates Courts take these matters far more seriously.  Our case is so strong that it might even find a home in Toronto - it's just that the CRSA has chosen not to litigate at the present time - we are just "setting the table".

I will bet you a dollar that the folks out there in Montréal were laughing at us in the beginning.  Then we kept tightening the vise.  Now this precedent setting lawsuit gets filed in New York.

Get long in CCH now.  The monkey business is going stop.  Now we also see signs that Campbell probably won't be offering any more private placements anytime soon. 

I mean Damn!  I would be buying these shares at 8 cents.