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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (4621)	2/4/1998 10:48:00 AM
From: tanoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Hello Bill; This is the most likely of all outcomes with regards to this whole situation. All parties will somehow be placated, in some degree or another, it would be the best for all parties concerned. It has always been my thoughts that they would be some how joint ventured or PDG would be somehow persuaded to ante up to KRY, in the form of a buyout offer or whatever. But as time has gone by, it appears that PDG has been playing the hard ball route and I believe they have now boxed themselves into a corner....it may be too late for them to do anything?? In most cases, you would think they would strike out at this point, but I think they now know they have dropped the ball on this one, and they now realize that they may have a lot of answering to do to their respective shareholders. How many times can a CEO keep dropping his balls all over the world before some shareholders decide to hang him up by them?? For the ones that know the list is quite extensive for PDG to have put themselves in the wrong places or situations time and again. Their overzealousness to try to catch up to and surpass ABX is well known in the mining circles, and this has led to many of their follies. With time, their board will have to answer to their shareholders, and we all know the power of shareholders, when they are upset.....it's lynching time......nyuk nyuk!! With regards,Frank

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (4621)	2/4/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

>>> besides PDG has no real case... This is an assumption I would not make at this point! If PDG developed the project under a sanctioned agreement with a company that had the blessing of a Government Agency (E&M) than they may have a case. It goes back to the point made earlier, did PDG progress this property with: "knowledge that they did not own the property" I think logically, that PDG conformed to the rules/regs of the day and at one time or another had been assured by a government department that it had legal right to explore the property. That exploration would obviously have been accompanied with the promise of a title to the property in the future. PDG is not a "junior" it has dealt with many different bureauracracies(sp). Ultimately the money it spent on 4&6 was spent in good faith(IMHO). It was not spent to exert a level of ownership that it did not assume it already had from the Ven authorities(that is throwing good money after bad). The dispute arose sometime after PDG had been "on the property", I don't think that is a point of dispute, even on this thread. Scenario #1 So IMHO what we have is a company (PDG) who honestly thought they owned the property, progressed 4&6 as a result of that knowledge. Ran into a property dispute with KRY. Didn't believe the claim in the original submission and stuck by their guns in hopes of clearing up the dispute and retaining the property. But, in the end, "did not win",or Scenario #2 What we have is a company (PDG) who honestly thought they owned the property, progressed 4&6 as a result of that knowledge. Ran into a property dispute with KRY. Didn't believe the claim in the original submission and stuck by their guns in hopes of clearing up the dispute and retaining the property. But, in the end, won Both scenario's are just as viable as others proposed on this thread!! The only difference is they donot include the "evil empire" manipulation of a small company called KRY" that is prevalent on the thread. If in fact this thread is correct, then after the dispute is over and KRY receives full title to 4&6, KRY would have ample opportunity to sue PDG for knowingly manipulating its stock and it's property,its reputation and its company. They could seek restitution for natural progression of "its" project, and the loss of market capitalization and inability to raise finances during the dispute. The suit could be launched in Canada, so "international rules", or Ven's supreme law would not have to be challenged. I await this suit, If it proves successful then I will believe the "evil empire" attitude that is prevalent, until then I will believe it is a "dispute of significance" with an outcome "to be announced". the Chief