NMCX - "The Company has already received an initial payment of $700,000, and the remainder of an $11 million down payment is to be paid over 24 months."

"Under the terms of the agreement, the buyer will pay the remaining $489 million over a 10-year period calculated from the date on which the full down payment schedule is activated..."

This is the previous co that owned the mine. The same people are involved with NMCX, except they added a new guy as CEO on 12-17-04.

From SEC:

"HCCA'S ACCOUNTING IMPROPRIETIES

A. HCCA Improperly Recognized and Valued Mining Assets

i. Skull Valley, Arizona

32. On or about August 24, 1995, HCCA issued 100 million shares of stock to acquire a company whose only significant asset was a sublease.

33. HCCA claimed in its filings that the sublease, dated May 11, 1992, provided ownership to 500,000 tons of ore inventory located in Skull Valley, Arizona.

34. The underlying lease provided that the lease could not be sold or assigned or exploration and mining operations initiated without the approval of the State of Arizona. HCCA took no steps at the time to secure such approval. Pietrzak and Furlong, among others at HCCA, each received copies of the lease.

35. HCCA recorded this asset on its books and valued the ore at $200 million.

36. This valuation was a departure from generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP").

37. Since HCCA failed to establish the fair value of any ore, or ownership of the ore, on the subleased land, there was no basis under GAAP to assign any value to such an asset in the books and records of the company.

38. HCCA never owned the ore and, accordingly, never should have recorded the ore as an asset.

39. The ore that HCCA valued at $200 million consisted of the tailings from a prior mining operation on the leased property.

40. Tailings are the materials that remain after the valuable minerals have been extracted from a mineral deposit.

41. HCCA's only interest in the tailings derived from the mineral lease, which merely gave HCCA the right to extract minerals, if any, from the ore. Arizona, as lessor, retained ownership of the ore.

42. Moreover, HCCA had no basis to value its interest in the mineral lease at $200 million.

43. HCCA never obtained an objectively determinable fair value for the ore.

44. On or about May 14, 1997, when the company's auditor was conducting his audit, he asked Furlong to engage an engineer or geologist to determine the value of the ore. Furlong refused and told the auditor to rely on an assay report.

45. On June 25, 1997, defendant Jordan, without a reasonable basis therefore, sent a report to the auditor stating that the value of the ore was approximately $4 billion.

46. Reliance on an assay report was improper because such reports only describe the mineral components of a substance, and do not describe the economic viability of extracting such minerals."
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18016.htm

Sure they were. LOL. Maybe you can give us a link.

Funny that the press release didn't mention the name of the company that signed the "$500 mil" contract with NMCX. I'll give you 20:1 odds it was another sham company owned by these guys or one of their "associates".

ROFLMAO. The ex-CEO, Michael Furlong, is STILL with NMCX.

""We are pleased to welcome Mike to NMC. He has a history of working hard and smart to optimize results, and his energy and his depth of knowledge will be value added in the execution of NMC's business plan," said Furlong." http://uk.us.biz.yahoo.com/bw/041217/175126_1.html

>>the financials are getting audited and actually being released,<<

The financials released were NOT audited. They will NEVER be audited.

>>Also I would assume that the allegations are cleared up if they are able to even announce a sale at all.<<

Why would you "assume" that? I can hire a PR company tomorrow and announce that I'm the King of Siberia.