worthy of a second reading... The question is the treatment that PASCUA transaction between MWR & Mina Pascua ownership, is receiving 2011.
The aberrational treatment of MWR & Lopehandia by STOCKWATCH, TSX, ABX, some mebers of this board and the public.
It seems discriminatory in nature, however it is a display of overtly intended cover up of the REAL TRANSACTION that MWR - Lopehandia have prepared for MWR at Pascua.
It is all a matter of title title title + title.
There are titles in litigation at the end of the day, ready to expire at law, "defended vigorously by ABX internationally whereas in Chile ABX has nothing at law".
The new twist, are the new valid Pascua claims 2011, that are subject of the MWR - Mina Pascua ownership, as those 2011 claims of Jorge Lopehandia, are already running as matter of public record uninmpeached at law.
Not so Barrick's portfolio of legal TSUNAMI proportions about to explode in Peter munk's face.
See 1/2 native chief, in Chile no one gets conquered it seems, eh?
However, in the name of the discrimination you site....
Where were the TSX regulators so bent in stopping MWR from yanking away Mina Pascua from Barrick at law, asking Barrick about LAC claims or EQUINOX's insider paradise deal to get commissions, rewards, shares, +++? a waste of public ABX's cash?
Why did they not question ABX regarding the acquisition, in the same ZEALOTIC manner the TSX is trying pry in - to stop MWR on its eforts of simply "entering into Option @ Pascua"?
It sounds to me that there is an overtly discriminatory treatment of MWR in their "apparent acquisition of rights to MINA PASCUA area claims of Jorge Lopehandia 2011".
The TSX and MWR owe a release to the public, as to why so much halts for MWR? when Barrick is allowed to pillage its till at EQUINOX'S "ambushed takeover"?
From this side of the spectrum it looks like OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE to allow Barrick free reign to profitteering v. MWR, while maintaining MWR halted, dry and in "flase perception of guilt or public shame, for daring to face off Barrick".
Very suspicious treatment of the Pascua transaction by TSX + ABX, v. MWR, one must say.