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: the Chief who wrote (5741)	2/25/1998 3:44:00 PM
From: viper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

$100MM + DAMAGES!

To: the Chief who wrote (5741)	2/25/1998 3:45:00 PM
From: Bob Walsh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

There would be no lien against LC by Placer and Placer can not bring a law suit against KRY in Ven. Placer is not a party to the present action - they have no standing. Placer may have a cause of action against CVG but that would not tie up KRY's working LC. Regards, Bob

To: the Chief who wrote (5741)	2/25/1998 3:54:00 PM
From: Gary H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Chief, The other questions to ask are; did PDG enter into an illegal contract with CVG? If so, how can the onus be put on LC 4&6. From what I understand, PDG thought they were getting in threw the back door with CVG, and it didn't pan out. They took a gamble - and lost. Too bad for them. Tough tamallis.