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 : Barrick Gold (ABX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: salva who wrote (1146)	4/12/1999 8:35:00 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Mineman - if you consider your point about the due diligence clause - there's no way in my opinion that this makes practical sense - because I can't imagine Sutton suing Barrick for completion over this issue - i.e. if Barrick wasn't satisfied and wanted to do dd., in spite of this alleged (by you) restriction they would go ahead anyway - because they would know that Sutton couldn't force the issue if something wasn't right in the data - it just wouldn't fly - and Barrick could claim some sort of force majeur. dd

To: salva who wrote (1146)	4/12/1999 8:38:00 AM
From: mineman	Respond to of 3558

How can you say you don't believe me as my allegations are all verifiable by comparing Sutton's website with Barrick's Bulyanhulu announcements and by asking Barrick if there was a "due diligence" clause in the agreement. The other 1.5 million ounce independent analysis should not matter as Barrick had the resources to conduct their own detailed analysis. The problem is that it appears Barrick's technical team were not given the opportunity to conduct the study before management "jumped the gun" and signed the deal. My only motive is to let people know about this problem. I have never owned or sold any Barrick stock.