"That was probably the first line of defense for them." Actually, it was literally the last line, since it was only raised in the closing arguments.
Saying that a US (or any other) company should not be permitted to rely upon someone because of his nationality is about the most outrageous argument that the SEC could have made. It is all the more so, since the SEC's American expert had to admit that he wasn't even qualified to critique Guido's work, and because Guido is US-educated, at the expense of the US government, no less, which chose him for a Harvard scholarship.
In addition, the SEC's other American expert, Al Trites, who did not testify, had produced a study two years before, that reached roughly the same conclusions as Guido's. Since the SEC had no complaint at the time (or since) with Trites' conclusions, or even with Guido's from a year earlier, why would they wait until then to question his credibility on the basis of nationality, or any other? What happened between 1996 and 1998? Bre-X.
Besides, if that is really the position of the SEC, then it should be codified in their Guide 7, and not selectively applied against Bolivians. What is the basis for discriminating against Bolivians in this way anyway? Who have been the perpetrators of previous mining scandals? I recall mostly Canadians, but no Bolivians. |
