Voodoo, I have reviewed the links you left me. Following are quotes and conclusions.
First on page 2: II Material Information Definition Material information is any information relating to the business and affairs of a company that results in or would reasonably be expected to result in a significant change in the market price or value of any of the company’s listed securities. Material information consists of both material facts and material changes relating to the business and affairs of a listed company. In addition to material information, trading on the Exchange is sometimes affected by the existence of rumours and speculation. Where this is the case, Market Surveillance may require that an announcement be made by the company whether such rumours and speculation are factual or not.
Based on the above quote, it seems apparent that Barrick must share the status of Pascua Lama publicly, though they need not necessarily halt to do so. I think Barrick would argue presently, that despite any rumours to the contrary, their position remains clear, they have consistently announced that Pascua Lama is business as usual. So, they meet this requirement I believe.
still on page 2: It is the responsibility of each listed company to determine what information is material according to the above definition in the context of the company’s own affairs. Again, because this is so subjective, and the regulators want it that way to protect big companies, I believe Barrick might be ok in not sharing the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Chile. It was their choice to share it or not, they chose not to.
on page 3: Developments to be Disclosed For example, a change in government policy that affects most companies in a particular industry does not require an announcement, but if it affects only one or a few companies in a material way, an announcement should be made.
Here, I think, Barrick finds some trouble. The last sentence is particularly telling. A change that only affects one or a few companies in a material way should be announced. I think a Supreme Court decision taking Pascua Lama away from you and giving it to someone else qualifies.
I need more time to go through the TSX document but while there is certainly some wiggle room for Barrick, there are parts that are more definitive and definitely are suggestive that Barrick should have, and should now have to announce clearly, what is up with Pascua Lama.
It is material fact that Barrick lost LAC 1978-1994 salt claims AMARILLOS 1-3000 as early as 1996 at law.
First to Jorge Lopehandia 1996 AMRILLOS SUR + AMARILLOS NORTE 8600 hectares covering most of AMARILLO 1-3000 salt concessions as metallic - all concessionable substances claimed concessions.
Then Barrick lost LAC areas to itself via TESOROS of HECTOR UNDA LLANOS 1997.
At 2001 Barrick should have reported as material the following:
PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL included LAC salt exploration claims, AMARILLOS 1-3000 illegally as back up for Gold exploitation at Dec 11, 2004 to date.
PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL included illegally the concessions TESOROS as those areas defending Mina Pascua camp on title, remain under C-1912-2001 injunction, with Jorge Lopehandia on title of TESOROS as legal beneficiary at 2011.
So, what does barrick have of PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL that is left at MINA PASCUA ore body, Camp and area of interest?
Surface rights? that is funny!! ABX, what for, an EIS gives barrick surface rights?
NOPE, not in Chile when PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL and Barrick's mining property are flawed at 2011.
not in Chile, never as disclosed by ANDY LLOYD via STOCKATCH as lies against MWR/TSX.
ABX has a duty to report the truth to shareholders, not to keep deceiving by press via false advertisement.