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 : Winspear Resources - Eric Charters Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Fix who wrote (64)	12/10/1998 12:51:00 AM
From: marcos	Respond to of 99

Fixer - there was one dissenting opinion which may save kry management's butts. Months ago it was written up on the Corte's website csj.gov.ve ... I don't have time now to look it up, and the site is slow or down, can't get past the first page .... likely in spanish only there anyway. Eric's been wrong, I've been wrong, you've been wrong .... big hairy deal ... cheers

To: The Fix who wrote (64)	12/10/1998 8:49:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99

Well Fix, these shareholder's action suits are a dime a dozen in the States but all this is, is predation on the company by people who confuse Stockhouse and SI with company announcements. They will not be able to show that Crystallex knowingly or wilfully misled the public, its shareholders in any substantive way. This suit is weak in two main areas, a clear statement of claim of what was the wrong and how and who was the author of the wrong by what statement or action. Eager beaver lawyers have fed the greedy shareholders a bill of goods and false expectations in this suit. Talk about misleading. The shareholders in this case are solely responsible for their own demise in a clearly stated and honestly run market on a very chancy court case. Crystallex stated facts. They had an agreement with a Venezuelan company, they had title to the claims. They had previous favourable agreements from the Supreme Court. Where did they mislead? Even Hildegard De Sanso, the Supreme Court Justice noted in there decision that the Court was reversing its two previous decisions. She said so in so many words. So I see an early dismissal on this matter. The wishy-wash case may attack the early representations of the company concerning the Santa Elena. But that has been gone through and cleared up. Title to concessions in Venezuela is always a grey area. It is not as open and shut as North America. So the granting of concessions can be made to seem very tenuous where just about all companies are in the same boat except CVG who do not seem to need a concession at all. Just a gun. EC<:-}