SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Precious and Base Metal Investing
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ralfph who wrote (22865)10/25/2003 1:30:54 PM
From: jrhana  Read Replies (1) of 39344
 
<Once that letter reached IMRs hands they had to disclose the contents to other parties involved in the financing>

Sounds like IMR is saying that AQI should have waited until after the financing to have sent the letter. I doubt that the potential participants in the financing would have agreed.

<Some forensic auditing and a arbitrator could clean this matter up quite quickly>

Absolutely agree would be to the benefit of both parties.

To my simple mind, AQI would be liable only if it could be proven that they new their potential claim was false and deliberately sent the letter to harm IMR. If they thought they reasonably might have a claim, how could they not have the right to request more information?

<It was not until this guy was in the position of losing his job and house that the matter was settled.>

Thank God I live here in Florida, where your homestead (as well as your retirement accounts)is protected. Your wages are also very difficult to attach.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News