projects, page-8

Rocket Fuel and Oily Man,

Rocket Fuel, considering the information requested in your post, perhaps others should come clean about who has a “vested’ interest in the company. I ask now if you or Oily man recently committed $$ for the Cypress project? And further if you will gain from any mining play or perhaps may even be a recipient of the options in Resolution 6 of the recent AGM announcement? (Please remember that if you are to gain in any way from any of the resolutions, according to ASX rules you do need to abstain from voting.)

As for Snowy, I don’t know who this pseudonym is – however he/she may well be one of the many shareholders I have spoken to of late.

You may also have forgotten that it was a Tech play that took MVH out of suspension with an SP of 1.3 cents up to 16 cents in just over 12 months and raised significant investment capital to do this. So your comments about a Tech play not “sexy” or unsupported is moot.

You are both obviously close to the Board since you mentioned cBox and a Tech play, no one but a select few knew this, so confidentiality is no longer required it seems and I’m grateful to you that you’ve allowed me to state the facts now.

I simply loathe smoking mirrors and innuendo as seems to always be the way with MOT, so to clarify, set the record straight and provide full transparency;

1. Regarding Cypress, cBox was approached by independent shareholders and 2 brokers who represented a group of concerned shareholders and told that it was a bad deal with massive dilution.
2. We investigated and then informed the Board that we would not support the Cypress deal and that they should look at other projects.
3. The EGM was then called off as you would be aware.
4. The same brokers and various shareholders requested cBox put forward a tech option in an effort to lift the SP without chapters 1 & 2 due to concerns of coming out of suspension.
5. Initially we said “NO”
6. On the 22 October at 8:30 am, I received a legal letter from a solicitor representing MOT stating that since we voted down Cypress and alluded to other projects being better, they requested that we come up with a project as the company may be forced into Voluntary Administration. I have the letter and so do other parties who received the same. (I have also had legal review the letter and it's OK to now mention this publicly, in case there is a complaint and I am moderated.)
7. After the letter we decided to put forward a proposal with a Tech play, largely due to stated potential insolvency issues which would not just hurt our position but that of many other shareholders as well.
8. Our proposal has not yet been accepted nor rejected. It is simply what we believed a reasonable solution offered in good faith to avoid MOT going into Voluntary Administration or chapters 1 & 2 and with actual revenue coming in the door.

You speak of getting brokers to support a mining deal and I've already had 2 brokers tell me that they won’t support it largely due to the SP being what it is now and the current economic climate for mining, and yet they will support a Tech play. There is no doubt there are brokers on the other side of the fence too, especially what I've heard about select brokers from WA who like to “pump and dump” – there’s a track record here so very easy to verify, but again DYOR. So basically some brokers will support and some won’t, this is to be expected as normal isn't it?

In my opinion, MOT needs to get on its feet first before mining deals with massive dilution and chapters 1 & 2 is completed or we are just giving away the company. Surely the poor level of management from this board in allowing MOT to become so vulnerable needs to be reviewed by ASIC and/or ASX, but this is not my area of expertise unfortunately and many things that I find atrocious or appalling practices in business appear to be blindly accepted. IMO.

Again, as with many other shareholders who have already contacted me, I’m happy to talk to you both personally if you wish further clarification – 0404 001 277

IMO DYOR