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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Natural Resource Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hubris33 who wrote (43216)	8/22/2006 8:26:34 PM
From: austrieconomist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108673

haven't read the opinion, just had it paraphrased to me by a "reliable source". There could be a variety of appealable errors. Won't know the tacks taken until the appeal has been filed. Don't think it has as yet, but could be wrong here. However, the core of the matter is fact intensive, including the credibility of witnesses. In the states that would be a difficult row to hoe. In Canada, however, I am not sure but I think an Appeals Court reviews the case without giving any deference to the lower court. Don't know how that works with judging the credibility of a witness -- surely they don't ask for witness testimony again on appeal. Anyway, my belief as a distant bystander is that it will be difficult to gain a reversal and AQI will know that. Perhaps some sweet settlement deal enriching IMR management will be the outcome. Seems most likely to me.