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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kip518 who wrote (96563)	12/3/2003 9:18:04 AM
From: Chispas	Respond to of 116972

Kip, in the Howe Vs. BIS case.... Judge Lindsay ruled, "The Judge states: '...there are many participants in the gold and gold derivatives markets who could allege a more direct injury than does the plaintiff. For example, there are many gold mining companies and private investors in gold (not to mention those central banks with gold reserves) that the plaintiff does not allege to be involved in the conspiracy. All of these persons or entities would be more directly injured than the plaintiff by a scheme of the kind he alleges.'" So, Blanchard, not being one of the primary injured parties, has the possibility of a similar ruling in their suit against Barrick. LET'S HOPE NOT !