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 : Copper Fox

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: mudguy who wrote (10139)4/17/2016 4:54:12 PM
From: louel  Read Replies (1) of 10654
 
I read the former case of reversal Prospekt posted on AG. Great point for reference. I found in that case it suggests they had made attempts to file but the Ministry was in error and the attempts failed for that reason.

In this case it appears the ministry site was working properly but there there was no attempt made to file after forfeiture deadline and before the new owners made their claim. So that in my opinion looks like the claim lapse is the fault of whoever was responsible to keep the claims up to date on behalf of CXM.

Nowhere in the Act or the regulations can I find where the ministry is responsible for negligent acts on behalf of any corporation. It clearly states in the regs. you cannot file against a legacy claim or cell. But to have legacy status the claims must be currently up to date, Not in forfeiture. They obviously appeared to be in forfeit status when the Commissioner registered them to the Yukone'rs

The amount of already spent dollars I don't think will be the G/Com's decision maker. It will be decided on law as set forth in the MTAct & MTRegs. And or whether or not CXM can come to an acceptable arrangement with the newly registered owners. What I said here is of course only an opinion as non of us are privy to all the facts.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext