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 : Crystallex (KRY)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Doug Shapiro who wrote (6774)3/12/1998 2:38:00 AM
From: knowell  Read Replies (1) of 10836
 
Doug,

This is what is before the Supreme Court(CSJ) at this time:

The action asks the court to rescind eleven separate actions of MEM(Ministry of Energy & Mines):

1. the purported grant of an alluvial copper concession title over Cristinas 4 to CVG

2. the purported grant of an alluvial copper concession title over Cristinas 6 to CVG

3. the purported grant of a vein copper concession title over Cristinas 4 to CVG

4. the purported grant of a vein copper concession title over Cristinas 6 to CVG

5. resolution CJ-15 of the MEM, which denied renewal of Mael Cristinas 4 title

6. resolution 096 of the MEM, which purported to extinguish Mael's Cristinas 4 title

7. resolution 142 of the MEM, which purported to terminate Mael's Cristinas 6 title

8. resolution 217 of the MEM, which denied Mael's opposition of grant of copper concessions to CVG

9. resolution 251 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG

10. resolution 253 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG

11. resolution 255 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG

All of the motions filed are related to Mael's ownership of the alluvial gold concessions at Cristinas 4 & 6. According to Venezuelan Mining Law, vein gold and other mineral alluvial rights (including copper) are subsidiary to the alluvial gold concessions, and cannot be claimed without a concession title.

And we KNOW Mael(KRY) has the concession title because of the previous three ruling by the CSJ. Besides, The Admission Judge - in July - also acknowledged that Mael produced evidence that the registered concession titles are in the name of Mael.

So you see, Mael(KRY) is NOT waiting for the court to rule on its title, but to CLEAR away the cloud put on the title by the MEM resolutions.

Regards,
Ken
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext