Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : ITV Games Inc. V.TVE (Formerly Border Capital) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boolish who wrote (72)	10/29/1999 11:36:00 PM
From: Boolish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 137

FROM CANADA STOCKWATCH STREET WIRE Dion Entertainment Corp - Dions ordered to post $1-million for injunction Dion Entertainment Corp DIO Shares issued 54,546,904 1999-10-29 close $1.4 Friday Oct 29 1999 Also Border Capital Corp (BOP) by Brent Mudry Howe Street stock and bingo promoters Louis and Leo Dion have scored a mixed win in court in their petition against Border Capital, IBC Investments and their associated responsdents. In a 17-page decision released Friday in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Mr. Justice Thomas Melnick ruled that the Dion brothers are entitled to an interim injunction to preserve the status quo of a disputed arbitration agreement. The judge, however, ordered the Dions and their associated private companies to post a security deposit of $1-million. The speedy decision comes a week after a two-day hearing ended on Oct. 22. Dion Entertainment is not a party to the court petition. Judge Melnick ruled that the Dions should provide a serious undertaking for damages if the Border group ultimately wins the case. "I am not satisfied that the petitioners have demonstrated that they have the financial ability to give a meaningful undertaking," stated the judge. The Border group requested a $6.8-million good-faith deposit, representing the amount Border has invested to date, but Judge Melnick found that a smaller, but still substantial, amount was more appropriate. The judge noted that he originally indicated his plan to hand down oral reasons on Tuesday, Nov. 2, but since he finished the job early, he invited lawyers for both sides to meet in court that day to discuss the appropriate wording for the injunction.