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: Gutman who wrote (7272)	3/20/1998 11:55:00 PM
From: Moot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Re: POA Gutman: Just to ensure that we understand each other, I pointed out near the beginning of my previous post and again near the end that I was not arguing that there was in fact an irregularity with respect to the POA. I was not making a claim about the POA, per se, but about arguments concerning the POA and arguments about legal issues more generally. Having said that, you raise an interesting point. To begin with, I have no direct knowledge that this extinguishment of debt to which you refer was recorded in a lower court and I have seen no documentation in this regard anywhere. At the same time, I hasten to add that I have not seen any documentation with respect to the POA being revoked prior to the April 1986 transaction nor to a subsequent voiding of the transfer in February 1991. The most I can say is that I have seen all these claims made, so the following should be taken as nothing more than some comments regarding a hypothetical. It seems to me that the question turns, first, on whether Lemon received the desired benefit and, second, whether Morales in his capacity as POA (assuming for the sake of argument he was so authorized) acted in Lemon's best interest. Insofar as Lemon is deceased, the first question may be beyond answer at this point. The recorded extinguishment of a debt in a court is not necessarily proof that this was the desired benefit (assuming such a record exists). The second question is certainly arguable. There is no indication, as far as I know, that Schmidt had a direct charge against LC 4 & 6. The credit that he sold to Torres was simply a charge against Lemon for unpaid legal fees. Did Morales, in assigning LC 4 & 6 to Torres for payment of this debt, ensure that Lemon was receiving full or reasonable value for the asset? Even without knowing the amount of Lemon's indebtedness and granting that lawyers are not shy when it comes to billing, I suggest that this is highly questionable. Certainly, Torres does not seem to have had much difficulty in disposing of this asset within thirty days--and I assume for a tidy profit. It would be interesting to know exactly what financial consideration Torres received from Mael in the subsequent transfer. I think that would give some indication of whether Lemon was well-served in this matter. Regards.