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: Islander who wrote (5514)	2/19/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: Islander	Respond to of 10836

AND: July 18, 1997 CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ANALYSIS OF JULY 15, 1997 VENEZUELAN SUPREME COURT RULINGS Prepared and Released July 18, 1997 Crystallex International Corporation's Venezuelan legal counsel has prepared this detailed analysis of the decision issued July 15, 1997 by the Admission Judge of the Venezuelan Supreme Court. That ruling admitted the action filed by Crystallex's Venezuelan Unit, Inversora Mael, C.A., and is a definitive step forward toward the enforcement of the company's ownership rights to the mining concessions Cristinas 4 & 6. Key points of the analysis are: Mael filed a single action, seeking the declaration of the nullity of all resolutions and actions by the Ministry of Mines (MEM) affecting the ownership rights of Mael over Cristinas 4 & 6 alluvial gold concessions and its subsidiary rights. The action asked the court to rescind eleven separate actions of MEM: 1.the purported grant of an alluvial copper concession title over Cristinas 4 to CVG 2.the purported grant of an alluvial copper concession title over Cristinas 6 to CVG 3.the purported grant of a vein copper concession title over Cristinas 4 to CVG 4.the purported grant of a vein copper concession title over Cristinas 6 to CVG 5.resolution CJ-15 of the MEM, which denied renewal of Mael Cristinas 4 title 6.resolution 096 of the MEM, which purported to extinguish Mael's Cristinas 4 title 7.resolution 142 of the MEM, which purported to terminate Mael's Cristinas 6 title 8.resolution 217 of the MEM, which denied Mael's opposition of grant of copper concessions to CVG 9.resolution 251 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG 10.resolution 253 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG 11.resolution 255 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG All of the motions filed are related to Mael's ownership of the alluvial gold concessions at Cristinas 4 & 6. According to Venezuelan Mining Law, vein gold and other mineral alluvial rights (including copper) are subsidiary to the alluvial gold concessions, and cannot be claimed without a concession title. Neither the motions filed by Mael nor the decision issued by the Admission Judge made any distinctions whatsoever regarding gold and copper rights. On the contrary, the admission of the motions filed by Mael was expressly made by the Admission Judge on the basis of the alluvial gold concessions titles registered in the name of Mael (page 26 of the decision.) The Admission Judge expressly established that the sole argument taken into consideration for the admittance and non-admittance of the motions was the number of days elapsed since the date of issuance of the resolutions, acknowledging that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Admission Chamber to consider these motions. Such determinations are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Political Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court (pages 26 & 27 & 30 of the decision). The Political Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court will now review the motions and has full and proper authority to consider them. The Admission Judge also acknowledged that Mael produced evidence that it had acquired the rights ever the Cristinas 4 & 6 concessions in 1986, and that the registered concession titles are in the name of Meal. This provides sufficient evidence to secure Mael's legitimate right of access to the Political Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court (pages 25 & 26 of the decision). The July 15 decision granted what Meal sought, that is the review of all its motions by the Political Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. That is the same body that has adjudicated three times in favor of Mael and ordered the publication of its title in the Official Gazette. The admitted motions will be reviewed and decided by the five Justices as a part of its regular procedure, and the remaining three motions will be reviewed and decided by the five Justices at the same time through a guaranteed process of appeal. At the end, the legal effect is the same as if every motion were admitted by the July 15 action. The Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice Law does not provide for "partial admission" of actions. According to that law, an action is either admitted or not. Mael filed a single action containing eleven motions, and that action was admitted. The concept of "appeal" in this instance is different from that commonly referred to in other jurisdictions and instances. Appeal here does not signify a motion filed in a superior court seeking the reversal of a decision from a lower court. In this case, Mael's appeal does not seek to reverse a decision regarding a statute of limitations, but requests the Court declare null and void certain resolutions and actions of the MEM. Under Venezuelan law, when a government resolution is declared null and void, the statute of limitations does not apply. The Admitting Judge does not have authority to declare a government resolution null and void -- that is a power vested in the Political Administrative Chamber. Contrary to certain statements by other parties, the decision in no way confirmed, considered or even mentioned the validity of other parties' alleged rights ever the Cristinas 4 & 6 concessions. On the contrary, the decision confirmed that Mael had registered concession titles over those properties. Placer Dome and CVG's various allegations that Mael renounced its rights, that its rights never existed or that they were extinguished were expressly rejected by the Admission Judge (page 26 of the decision). Copies of the decision issued by the Admission Judge on July 15 are available from Crystallex. For further information contact A. Richard Marshall, VP Corporate Development at 1-800-738-1577, or Fax on Demand at 1-800-758-5804, ext. 114620, or use our online form.