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: Moot who wrote (8055)	4/10/1998 4:14:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

First and foremost if Mael had surrendered its rights to the claims by that agreement after the first expropriation it may have prevented the court from gazetting title. It has not done so. So we may assume that the MEM and other parties with an interest in blocking this would have addressed the matter of waiving of rights to sue. If the agreement had been perfected then Crystallex MAY not have had this right to sue Minca and Dome for their dispossession of the claims. At least it MAY have been contested on this basis. But the agreement is a bit cloudy and speaks of the waiving of the right to sue for damages. It does not specifically state that they may not attempt to redress the matter of the rightful ownership of the claims in the first place. A fine point but an important one. Further if it wrongful in the first instance to expropriate the claims then all other things that flow from the wrongful act are as you would guess, moot. For instance if I resist a wrongful or fraudulent arrest I cannot be charged with resisting arrest. What arrest? Therefore whatever I agree to as a compensation for being wronged is in itself non-binding. ( I think it would depend on the nature and circumstance of the offer) Wronged is wronged. No entity can abrogate itself of its basic rights by agreement with the one who would deny him these rights on one hand and compensate him for that denial on the other. Why the compensation? And admission of some wrongdoing it seems. Remember this offer is a papering over, it is not based upon fact finding and admission of government error. Therefore the recipient of the largesse has no real choice in the matter of acceptance of these offers. Also even if Mael refused to perfect the agreement and did not negotiate it isn't necessarily binding on them that they then accept the offer and relinquish their rights. It isn't necessarily bad faith that Mael would do this. It's moot, moot. Further the non-perfection of the agreement is a matter of importance. It did not take place. The agreement was dependent on a negotiation. We do not see the MEM pointing the finger and saying that that error was Crystallex's or Mael's fault. This speaks volumes. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter

To: Moot who wrote (8055)	4/10/1998 4:23:00 PM
From: excalibur	Respond to of 10836

Hey, let's put this Asensio nonsense to bed! Fact is that KRY management knew of his attack before the market opened and deliberately chose to do nothing about it!!! They waited seven hours to finally give a tepid reply to Asensios' nonsense. And yet it continued without any counter from them for a week. Only after a very few of us (who had long ago told them to be prepared) bombarded them to mount an offensive against Asensio did they finally react. Of course the damage had been done! After hitting US$8¬, shareholders were allowed to be led to the slaughter. Proving that management has big time money people on board but who can/could care less about the average shareholder (who has to pay for his shares on the open market). By the way, why did KRY shoot up to US$8¬? Who was pumping the share price and why? Only to tumble to US$3¬ in days? Technically speaking, that is a disaster! Where was management? Relying far too heavily on the SH KRY forum frankly! Allowing the numerous regulars there to carry water that should have been KRY PR's work! But again, why the surge in KRY shares to US$8¬? Seems that strong "rumors" were afoot that Cecilia Sosa Gomez had informed our management that a decision would be handed down that week. And apparently, management believed it!!!!! And we were all royally screwed in the meantime. excalibur

To: Moot who wrote (8055)	4/10/1998 5:59:00 PM
From: TAO	Respond to of 10836

Moot and E. Charters your discussion regarding the agreements between Mael and the CVG may soon be resolved. From Avalon on Stockhouse. It looks as if we will all get to see a copy of the agreement very soon. " Earlier today, I was speaking to someone who was referred to me by a friend of mine and who was very familiar with Venezuelan law. He had obtained some of the relevant documents relating to this case and he pointed out a couple of things to me regarding these two agreements that PDG claims to have that PROVE Mael gave up its rights to LC 4&6 to the CVG...he has taken a look at them and he asked two things...HOW did Placer come up with a date of Feb 1991? The agreement has NO date on it save the year 1991. Wording seems to suggest that it was drafted after the May 1991 SC ruling...sometime around August. In no way does the agreement show that Mael gave up its rights and even if it did (and this is where it might tie in with Dr. Corredor's opinion as someone was asking )...there is NO record of this transaction at either the MEM or the Ministry of Finance...both agencies must be notified as it is the first step of many that MUST , under Organic Law, be completed before one can renounce rights to a concession. (The Ministry of Finance apparently has to take inventory of the property and do an audit of taxes etc. to make sure everything is up to date...I guess like a title search here in Canada when you are buying a property). The second agreement is related to the first and from what I understood a ratification of the first agreement before the courts.. His feeling is that Placer will have a lot of splainin' to do to their shareholders. From his viewpoint, the ONLY issue that KRY should have a concern with is the SoL issue...not the agreements, the POA (more on that one later too), not the failure to pay taxes etc.... His feeling is that they are on very solid ground in dealing with that little problem. It is also his opinion that THIS phase is NOT an all or nothing for KRY...if the 8 get admitted, it is KRY's job, at trial, to wrap the case around the title issue so as to get a judgement on the proper rights to mine LC before going to the copper rights specifically...ie. if they don't have title , they cannot even go after the copper so if the 3 don't get admitted, they have to make an argument for title first... Did that make sense?? I hope so, it made sense while he was talking to me but it does not seem so clear when I read the words I have typed :(( This game will soon be over!! AV BTW...he is faxing a copy of this famed "Feb." agreement to me either Saturday or Monday (I don't have access to a fax until then) and I will then send it to Lyle, Ken and Eugene with the hope that they are kind enough to post it on their website for ALL to see :)