ABX must sue TSX-MWR Pascua deal or forfeit PASCUA LAMA
SLW/ABX must sue TSX-MWR Pascua deal or forfeit PASCUA LAMA
Not a good position to be in...
Having to sue compliance and regulators at TSX to prove they are wrong at approving MWR Pascua deal, so to validate SLW-ABX farce & fiasco?
Are SLW and ABX tanking while their peddle metals climb in prices by any chance?
Will the crime duo sue TSX for keepers at TSX - MWR legal teams PASCUA transaction's approvals days ago?
Would love some comments, intelligent ones, no hate.
I am but a forensic disclosure person...
following Barrick's MINA PASCUA theft 1996-2011
Kurt Bernardi and departed SLW CEO knew this by 2009 Also Bernardi's counterpart at ABX also departed PATRICK GARVER knew it all 3D, no clean titles for ABX, yet they went ahead for insider trading privileges.
They preferred insiders perks and privileges in the tradings of blcocks with Barrick's stolen Mina Pascua asset ... AS IF any real DD had been done...
BCSC had copies of all mails to SLW by MINA PASCUA owner and legal teams...
why then buying Chile's Pascua Silver with "well known by SLW-ABX to be" fake & bogus documentation from ABX to SLW via PATRICK GARVER ABX to Kurt bernardi SLW?
Preposterous, when the documents at www . minapascuachile . com were already at SLW"S and BCSC'S hands prior to consumation of the crime.
Welcome to loss of money, BIG LOSS OF LOTS OF CASH @ SLW-ABX today!
This, due to manipulation of SEC material fats.
That plain, that simple.
MWR presented to TSX its PASCUA transaction and it, has already been approved.
That leaves SLW without its second largest asset having to sue another BRE-X or ENRON like Barrick.
Barrick 2011 has been found faltering by TSX at Pascua, when TSX approving MWR for resumption of trades at its PASCUA deal days ago.
There can be only one mother of the PASCUA child.
TSX is now directly opening MWR to acquire PASCUA.
That means SLW - ABX are trading nonsense & crime.