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: marcos who wrote (5750)	2/25/1998 5:31:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

I agree. I think that there are far reaching effects of the decision either way!! the decision could bring into question "ownership " of properties that have already been brought into production by other companies. PDG or KRY will win but others my lose. IMHO the conclusion of 4&6 ownership will be based on a judgement that "minimizes the impact to Ven mining". This is why I believe it "could" go either way, "facts aside"!! However, that colours the Ven justice system which is not my intention. the Chief

To: marcos who wrote (5750)	2/26/1998 12:21:00 AM
From: Gary H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Marcos, Your statement - <I would think, and this is one factor encouraging the judges to consider carefully the KRY/Mael> I can't agree with that. LC 4&6 was never legally in the hands of the CVG and therefore didn't have the right to award it to PDG in any way. With this in mind how could it cause the courts to question KRY's position. Willson was warned 3 times by KRY and the PDG lawyers of their insecure position. The squabble is between PDG and CVG and I don't think PDG has a leg to stand on because they knew the deal with CVG was shady. If you go back through all the info since June last year it's all there and has been repeated many times.