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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (33270)	7/8/1998 12:31:00 PM
From: Tim Hall	Respond to of 35569

Andy, At one point, over two years ago, BD threatened to sue M.C., N.N. and AZ, but they backed off. At the time it was suspected that a little legal threat would back the AZ boys off. IPM also pulled out of their suit. This time the speculation was that they did not want to have consultant reports released. I would really like to see this lawsuit proceed. I think it is the only way we will ever be able to see the actual BD reports and the reports by Bateman and any other associated consultants. I think that we will find that BD did exactly what they were paid to do; ie. They were paid a lot of money to let IPM flash their name around. Tim Hall

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (33270)	7/8/1998 12:49:00 PM
From: Paunch	Respond to of 35569

Andy If what I have heard of BD puling out of IPM is true , they were told if you sign off on IPM you will never work in the mining industry again, that is why after stating that they needed another month to grind the sand finer they than ran out on IPM and never signed off on the numbers, that is one of the reasons that IPM was taken off of the NASDAQ small caps. Paunch.