We have received an Expert Witness opinion from Meggymoo that it was the responsibility of Campbell’s Auditors to review Nuinsco’s 50% buy-in of the Corner Bay mine.  Meggy is an experienced Corporate accountant, and it’s been demonstrated that he often speaks for Andre Fortier.

[Accounting expert witness] I am a qualified Auditor I know for a fact that if that arrangement has not been met as described it is reportable on many fronts - there are related party, fiduciary duty, statutory disclosure, even straightforward accounting rules all under scrutiny. If auditors don't understand the legal aspects they are required to obtain expert advice on it.

The fact that that earn in has tax consequences also means it is caught under international money laundering rules; non compliance is a criminal offence.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=9985&mn=7408&pt=msg&mid=6538172

But this matter is becoming very serious, very quick.  Here is my research from March 2008, where I was able to determine that there is legal and accounting precedent that a where Courts have ruled that a “Quid pro quo transaction” cannot be used to satisfy a financial commitment.  

I researched legal precedent – Nuinsco’s claim of 50% ownership would be easily challenged

http://www.investorvillage.com/groups.asp?mb=11397&mn=1557&pt=msg&mid=4376002

This is a very important post – with the link to the original agreement between Campbell and Nuinsco.

Furthermore, the contract agreement between Nuinsco and Campbell required Nuinsco to complete a Corner Bay Feasibility study at Nuinsco’s expense.

In March 2008, one of our CRSA researchers carefully studied the press releases on this deal. 

The 2006 agreement said that the “feasibility study to be prepared by Nuinsco at the Company’s [Nuinsco’s] cost”.

Sometime after the original contract was signed, there was a press release issued by Nuinsco that said that the feasibility study would be at Campbell’s expense.

They changed the words, if you compare the two press release that describe the contract!

So what we have here could be fraud (false statements in a filing), or at a minimum, it was a material change that was not appropriated filed and reported to shareholders. 

This change represents hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) in services that Nuinsco was required to deliver.  The Campbell Board excused Nuinsco from satisfying that requirement, and now we have evidence that there may have been a deliberate cover-up in a Sedar filed document.  (Or at a minimum, a failure to report a material change).

And remember, the Feasibility study is the “minor issue” here.  The bigger issue is that the entire transfer to Nuinsco (the 50% stake) is invalid because a “Quid pro quo transaction” cannot be used to satisfy a financial commitment.   There is clear legal precedent for that.  And that so the kind of thing that an Auditor is supposed to know.

We now have reason to believe that the Auditors (Samson Bélair / Deloitte & Touche) may have failed din their duties to investigate and disclose these discrepancies.