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 : BRE-X, Indonesia, Ashanti Goldfields, Strong Companies. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: darko who wrote (27810)	3/26/1998 2:08:00 AM
From: Walter	Respond to of 28369

Thursday, March 26, 1998 Bre-X directors 'got some 'splaining to do' By SANDRA RUBIN The Financial Post The idea that directors of Bre-X Minerals Ltd. can't be held liable for press releases claiming the company was sitting on a massive gold find is "ridiculous," lawyer Harvey Strosberg, who is leading a class action suit, argued yesterday. Lawyers for Bre-X chief executive David Walsh and other directors of the firm had stated previously that officers and directors can't be held personally liable for inflated claims because they were acting in their corporate capacity, not as individuals. But Strosberg attacked their argument as illogical. "Is the logic David Walsh could go and intentionally make fraudulent statements and - even though he sells off millions of shares - get off because he was smart enough to put it on company letterhead?" he asked. "That is not the law. If it were the law, it would make Ontario the fraud capital of the world." It was Strosberg's first chance to respond to a barrage of criticism of his pleading from lawyers for various defendants who are trying to have chunks of the lawsuit rewritten or deleted before it goes to trial. The defendants have all argued that Strosberg failed to plead cause, and to show who made what false statement causing which investor to buy Bre-X stock. "After listening to the efforts of my 15 friends and their minions behind them, you'd get the idea that a standard of perfection is required," Strosberg said at the start. "If I'd spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars, I could have come up with a better pleading. Luckily, that is not what is required." He told Ontario Court Judge Warren Winkler that he has set out clear evidence of misrepresentation and the defendants must now answer. "As Ricky Ricardo would say: You've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy." Strosberg also defended his argument that several brokerage firms violated the Competition Act in issuing false statements and research reports about Bre-X, saying it's "consumer welfare legislation." "To suggest this act wasn't meant to cover securities is nonsense." Earlier in the day, the lawyer representing ScotiaMcLeod Inc., L‚vesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc., Midland Walwyn Capital Inc. and Toronto Dominion Securities Inc. argued Strosberg failed to show the plaintiffs named in the pleadings relied on the brokerages' recommendations. Benjamin Zarnett said that in L‚vesque's case, while the client says he bought the stock on Feb. 18, 1997, on L‚vesque's recommendation, it actually put a "sell" on Bre-X shares that day. He said in Midland's case, the plaintiff bought the shares June 24, 1996 - a month before Midland initiated coverage of the stock. Zarnett also said there was not enough information on the TD Securities pleading to determine a direct link. Michael Birley, the lawyer representing CIBC Wood Gundy Securities Inc., called Strosberg's pleading "boilerplate," complaining whole paragraphs are repeated verbatim against different defendants. "All of the brokers are alleged to be 'one of the principal promoters of Bre-X,' " he told the judge, adding that the same problem plagues the pleadings against the analysts. CIBC analyst Bruno Kaiser "has a billion-dollar case against him, but it's not pleaded with any particularity." BREAKING NEWS MARKET WATCH BIZ TICKERS MUTUAL FUNDS MONEY RATES BIZ SEARCH Newcourt Credit to pause Telecom stocks lift off Royal Oak solves 'liquidity problems' Bre-X directors have to explain CANOE home \| We welcome your feedback. Copyright c 1998, Canoe Limited Partnership. All rights reserved. Please click here for full copyright terms and restrictions.

To: darko who wrote (27810)	3/26/1998 10:24:00 PM
From: alan holman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28369

To: +william smith (26720 ) From: +Adrian du Plessis Friday, Sep 12 1997 9:19PM EST Reply # of 27815 Yes, that was an interesting day -- April 23 1997. Nesbitt brokerage offices were spreading the rumour that Jim Bob Moffett had resigned, adding another smokescreen was David Walsh who was announcing on that same day more great perviously unreleased assay results from Busang. The Globe and Mail the next day (April 24) falsely attributed the stock price run-up to Moffett rumours on the internet. The Financial Post wrote about the Bre-X assays. It was on SI that the most accurate story came out -- the rumours were identified as having coming from brokers (who were also spreading the b.s. that Suharto had apologized to the Bre-X boys for the mixup) and the Moffett resignation was quickly debunked. I know the first Bre-X book puts forward the same false version of events as were carried numerous times in the Globe and Mail newspaper (and other journals). I'm anxious to find out how the Diane Francis book approaches this element. I posted the SI version in a discussion thread on Windsor Gold as well as on my web-site months ago. It wasn't clear to me from the the interview I saw a week or two back on Pamela Wallin Live (a Canadian tv program) just how the role of the internet was going to portrayed in this latest Bre-X tome. It's encouraging that the public will learn of the identity of mikesloan/Merrick Walsh and others -- all toward a more level playing field. And that's hopefully, the real name of the game -- bringing greater fairness to public investment.