E. Charters
<p>
Mr. Charters: In some posts (and rarely) you seem willing to engage in a discussion. In others, you seem intent on stifling it. Perhaps I will return to the latter in another post regarding culpability in the damage caused by Asensio's assaults on Crystallex but, although a relatively straightforward argument, it will take some time to set out. For the moment, I will attempt to address your comments regarding an earlier post of mine with respect to two legal opinions. I thank you in advance for having taken the time to review it.
At the outset, let me say that I take these two opinions very seriously indeed. Moreover, I agree that Corredor may have a very good point with respect to the Mael/CVG 'agreement' whereby, as some would have it, Mael waived certain rights. Having said that, I would like to begin with the proposition that legal opinions are just that. I further suggest that legal opinions are sought and tendered with respect to points of law that that are open to interpretation concerning whatever specific matter is being addressed. I take it that these are relatively simple propositions which shouldn't meet with much objection. I'm sure I'll hear otherwise if this is not the case.
I have offered some more detailed comments with respect to the POA in post #7271 on this thread. There may be something there of some small interest to you; especially with respect to the centrality of property rights. I believe I have also suggested there that I do not think that the POA will figure into this dispute, barring some further revelation. I think we are in agreement here. Nonetheless, I think it is again worth remarking that both Baumeister y Brewer and Corredor address this matter to some degree in their legal opinions. My question remains: Why would they do this if the matter was not open to interpretation? This brings me to the opening of your post.
I do not know that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the POA. There is nothing in the three rulings that indicates that they did. What we do know is that they found that the notification to the MEM from the Court of First Instance satisfied the intent of Article 15 of the Mining Law and, hence, the transfer to Mael should have been gazetted. It so ordered and when MEM failed to comply, it gazetted the title transfer on its own. If you have some further information with respect to this, I would be pleased to hear it.
As for the 'agreement' between Mael and CVG, Corredor may well be right. But that is by no means guaranteed. At some point, Mael clearly intended to waive some rights, hence the disallowed motion to the CSJ. The motion presented by Mael's former attorney had no legal merit in the context of the previous ruling of the CSJ. That does not mean that the basis for the motion would not have any legal merit in every other context.
Corredor clearly has the advantage of having reviewed the 'agreement'. And he may be absolutely right in his interpretation. However, the very fact that it is open to interpretation should be cause for some concern. One concern should be the circumstances under which the conditional negotiation failed to materialize. It is implicit when entering into a conditional contract that the parties to the contract act in good faith with respect to whatever conditions it entails. Failure to satisfy those conditions is not in all cases sufficient grounds for the voiding of the contract.
Finally, it is by no means clear that any of the points addressed in these two legal opinions are of paramount importance or are even being considered with respect to the 11 motions pending before the CSJ.
If Crystallex does prevail and your value estimates are realized, some people will do very well. I won't begrudge them that if it happens. If it does happen, I may well wish that I held some shares of Crystallex. I won't, however, wish that I had just listened to 'so and so'. I do listen to anyone who is prepared to contribute, but in the end I weigh my own assessment of the various claims and make my own decision. Crystallex just doesn't fall into my comfort zone. I've been wrong before, and undoubtedly will be wrong again. So be it.
Regards. |
