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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Furry Otter who wrote (20727)9/12/1997 3:38:00 PM
From: DCBEN   of 35569
 
FO

You say, among a lot of interesting things, "...because if the issue was material, it would have to be disclosed,"

I was the first one to make this point with regard to the latest release, and I'm now wondering just how true it is. Since no one has referred to it up until now, I was content to go back to lurking. But since you seem to give credence to it, I'm now wondering, if true, exactly how the requirment to release "material" facts operates. Is it enough to reveal all material developments quarterly in the scheduled 10-q? If not, just when is a company required to make a formal, unscheduled release of negative information?

Say IPM had a draft of a BD report that said there was nothing in the dirt after all (don't think for a minute its true, but just for argument). Could they wait until the final report to make that news public. If I remember how the Bre-X case unfolded, it was just this requirement that forced Bre-X to make public just such preliminay reports.

Allan
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News