Core Gold Corrects Self-Serving, False, Misleading, Defamatory and Inaccurate Disclosures Made by its Former CEO

Core Gold therefore wishes to correct the misleading statements and also to provide additional information which Mr. Piggott has selectively omitted from his press release.

1.   Mr. Piggott’s Press Release is a Clear Breach of his Duty of Confidence as a Director of Core Gold and a Misuse of Corporate Information solely for his own Personal Interest

Mr. Piggott does not understand even the basic legal requirements of being a director of a corporation, and most certainly does not understand that his press release is a breach of his duties as a director under Section 142 of the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia). As a director, he owes Core Gold a duty of confidence and he must protect Core Gold’s corporate information, which he is not to use for his own personal interest and gain. His press release of April 1, 2019 is completely at odds with this requirement as he is now divulging confidential corporate information about a possible transaction and discussions that are not his to divulge unilaterally. This is consistent with his prior actions as CEO where it is known that he “tipped” numerous Core Gold shareholders to internal Core Gold discussions, which is contrary to securities laws and which has been notified to the British Columbia Securities Commission. Mr. Piggott seems to believe that he does not have to abide by any corporate or securities law, or any duty owed at law or otherwise.

2.   Mr. Piggott’s Purported Transaction with a Chinese Mining Company would Deliver no Value direct to Core Gold Shareholders but would have Preserved Mr. Piggott as CEO

Core Gold did authorize a $4 million private placement at C$0.45 per share from a Chinese mining company. However, the Chinese structure would have kept Mr. Piggott as CEO (which the Titan transaction does not), and so clearly Mr. Piggott’s own personal interest is skewing his perception of a transaction which was non-binding, highly conditional, subject to lengthy and uncertain due diligence, required much further negotiation, and would not deliver value direct to Core Gold shareholders. Leaving aside the non-binding and highly conditional nature of the Chinese mining company’s letters of intent, that purported transaction would not have delivered value directly to Core Gold’s shareholders as does the agreement with Titan Minerals Limited (“Titan“). Rather, it would have provided new cash into Core Gold (which the Titan transaction also does) but would not provide a value uplift associated with the exchange of shares for shares in a larger consolidated Titan and Core Gold merged group.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8