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 : LAYFIELD RESSOURCES (LAY-VSE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clark Kent who wrote (157)	2/13/1998 7:04:00 PM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Respond to of 528

$629,500 suit filed Layfield Resources Inc LAY Shares issued 27,236,010 Feb 12 close $0.13 Fri 13 Feb 98 Street Wire by Brent Mudry Layfield Resources faces a $629,500 suit over lapsed mineral claims in the district of MacKenzie in the Northwest Territories. In a statement of claim filed Thursday in BC Supreme Court, 421346 BC claims it optioned some of its claims to Layfield in June 1992. The original agreement called for Layfield to leave the mineral claims in good standing for at least six months after the termination of the option period. Barry Kirkham of Owen Bird, the numbered company's lawyer, claims that disputes arose under the original option agreement, which the parties settled in a settlement agreement in June 1994. Mr Kirkham claims that under the settlement agreement, Layfield agreed to advance $954,500 to his client to conduct an exploration program on the claims. The suit claims that Layfield only advanced a third of the agreed amount, and failed to pay the remaining $629,500, constituting a breach. Mr Kirkham states that his client did not serve notice of default or terminate the option agreement, opting instead to require specific performance, demanding Layfield to pay the $629,500. The suit claims that in 1996, Michael Cytrynbaum, representing the numbered company, advised Layfield president Neil Briggs that Layfield should either quit claim its interest or finance the exploration program to keep the claims in good standing. Mr Kirkham notes that the mining recorder's office in Yellowknife on August 27 1996 provided 60 days notice that $273,200 in spending or payment was required to maintain the claims. A month later, Layfield received notice the claims would expire on October 25 1996. The suit notes that Layfield failed to make any payments, and the claims lapsed. Now, after waiting patiently for 16 months, the numbered company has finally opted to sue Layfield. A statement of defence has not yet been filed.