Chilean surpreme court supposedly ruled against Barrick three years ago but Barrick still owns the mines. No one who keeps slandering Barrick has answered this all important question.
Well said cityapartment.
Crazy some in here want to forget the info we are speaking of is from MWR and JL's website.
We bring it up as investors because it's fact. MWR is halted over those facts. It's a fact money can be made or lost from those facts. I enjoy the discussion over those facts so I can decide what I want to do with my investment.
BTW, ABX has gone down over 12% since MWR was halted two weeks ago. I'm just saying... I don't know if it has anything in common.
From my understanding, and in my opinion, Barrick has used several legal avenues to pursue some type of ownership over Pascua on the Chile Side. Or at least, to keep litigation going in the hope of bankrupting the weaker party - Jorge. It is my beleif, that Barrick will move heaven and earth to keep this story supressed as long as possible. The one clear advantage they have, is that this is occuring in Chile- a non-english speaking country.
They will also attempt, in my opinion, to confuse shareholders by maintaining the name Pascua Lama and say that Mina Pascua is a different land package all together. This is why there is great discussion over the Pascua Lama Protocol. Some argue that it is a cover and being used by Barrick to deceive. I'm continuing to research the protocol so that I can decide for myself.
1. The Chilean Supreme Court ruled in favour of Jorge Lopehdia. This decision continues to stand. As per Catalino Albanez, a mining expert certified by the Chilean Government, the land in question is in the name of Jorge Lopehdia.
2. Barrick went to CIVIL court and tried to sue the Supreme Court judge that sided with Lophendia
3. Although Jorge was legal owner of Pascua Chile, Barrick successfully sued him in Canada for Libel with the result being that Jorge wasn't allowed to speak to his ownership claim in Canada. I believe this Canadian ruling is still in effect.
Your confussion may be a result of the number of legal avenues Barrick has seemingly availed themselves of. I have outlined them above to the best of my ability.
I have surmised, based on the MWR News Releases, that MWR provided Jorge with funds to assist with solidifying Jorge's claim. Big companies have one advantage over us, the little guy - money and lots of it. Litigation is expensive. MWR also spent money on Due Diligence, by having all documents, supplied by Jorge translated into English. This is event by their News Releases as they included the translated documents.
Ultimately, in the end, all you can do is review the evidence and decide for yourself. YOu have been provide the third party verfication Catalino Albanez, links to legal docs, and links to the MWR News Releases.
I probably won't reply to anymore of your querries, because there is nothing more that I can do for you. It is up to you to do your own research and form your own conclusions.
But I was just informed that Jorge has clear title by other parties posting on this board so justice has been served. Another question would be if he has clear title why does he need MWR's $900,000.00? It does not make sense. Other posters say he has clear title given to him by Chiles surpreme court so that would be end of story,no more litagation,done deal no need for MWR's money or anyones. I believe thier is more to this story than what these other posters are stating. I also cannot comprehend how these guys keep posting the same thing over and over again. Do they do it out of the goodness of thier hearts? I think not. I,on the other hand admit I have 8,850 shares and I will contact Barrick after I copy the most damaging post to them on this board and send it to them.
I am only guessing here that he is waiting for justice and is parterning up with another company who will have joint custody of said property to watch ABX tank when the truth comes out through an announcement, I also think he is waiting for justice over 11 years of ABX lying to not only their shareholders, but also TSX Regulators regarding said land and again, this is just an opinion, I claim not to know anything but rather this statement of opinion only comes from the readings I have read from Legal Chilean Court Documents and would not be surprised if ABX board could be in hot water here soon for lies to gain from owning something they never did own
Each time you post, your one step closer to accepting the truth. At first, you were outraged at the notion that Barrick was even in a legal battle over Pascua Lama. Then you switched, and accepted the legal battle saying Barrick would win hands down. Then you started to rant about how the Chilean government would never let Barrick lose Pascua Lama saying "money talks."
From your most recent post, it is clear that you have embraced the truth that Barrick lost Pascua Lama in the Supreme Court Decision. Your post clearly states such. Now, you're trying to defend the notion that even though Barrick lost, they still own Pascua Lama.
You have been provided ample evidence demostrating Barrick lost Pascua Lama and that the mineral rights are in the name of Jorge Lophendia. You are stuck in limbo - half denial and half knowing the truth. Good luck with your voyage out of Hade - the truth will set you free.
All I am asking is if the surpreme court ruled in 2008 why is this still going on. If you say a lower court over ruled the surpreme court I find that hard to believe. That would not and could not happen in the U.S. Once the U.S. Surpreme court rules it is set in stone and if a lower court tried to over rule it the federal marshals would swoop down and arrest the judge if he did not recind. I thought that the Chileans were more fair and just than the U.S. or most other nations if you listened to some of the posters on this board,so once again, "PLEASE EXPLAIN"and quit side stepping the issue.
So what is the bottom line?
If you are correct about Barrick not owning the mining rights.... what is the potential impact of a decision to abandon Pasca? What percent of Barrick's revenue going forward could be lost in a worst case scenario?