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: Carl who wrote (5102)	2/10/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Bob Walsh	Respond to of 10836

Carl, you list 3 possible outcomes but ignore two of the most probable outcomes: (1) MEM retracts its prior rulings, etc against Mael and/or (2) The Court rules in favor of Mael/KRY (consistant with it's prior 3 rulings in favor of Mael) and no further court rulings are needed. Regards, Bob

To: Carl who wrote (5102)	2/10/1998 8:54:00 PM
From: charred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Carl: when I logged on this thread I asked if Placer Dome can sue someone. I was told I had no clue on these matters. I lurked on this thread and I saw everybody bashing Placer Dome. Why bash Placer Dome? After all they drilled off the reserves. If Placer loses, Placer should be able to sue and sue big. What happens in sometimes latin american countries is that if a title was taken away and the same area was staked and the title was awarded to another party the original title owner can sue for damages from the Ministry. This seems logical to me. Placer can continue and KRY can get a settlement.