TSX ought to halt ABX, until MWR evidence is verified
The honest, transparent, realistic, non libel prone, ethical thing to do by TSX, in light of the evidence before it, is to halt Barrick Gold Corporation - ABX - TSX.
TSX may be committing or is wanton to halt MWR instead at every turn of the wheel, so they are unable to trade.
What is the fear TSX?
Where are some clear press releases MWR?
What is the market reaction? this is very much part of Silver Wheaton's problem too, as they call Mina Pascua's Silver, its second largest asset at their annual report 2010.
Go figure, Peter Munk peddled non owned Silver to Curt Bernardi at pawnshop prices?
why? because stolen merchandize is cheap.
Because Barrick needed the "impression that SLW had due diligenced Pascua titles, hence, the transaction "legitimized Pascua to Barrick".
So to con the system, Banks and Gold dealers, Bulluion and paper alike.
So to keep their appearance and stance taken against Mina Pascua owner, abusing false affidavits in Canada's courts of law, against Mina Pascua owner, as record has it for years.
Why would Barrick insist that it owns Pascua?
Why TSX halts MWR and not ABX?
There is a thin veil of secrecy to protect Barrick left in the system, that will soon be shattered by the overwhelming evidence of Judicial record.
Barrick lied to have recovered claims via Appeals Court 2007.
Lied and cover up, the existance of SUPREME COURT OF CHILE proceedings against them, unfavorable at 2008, so again lower courts could be clouded and tampered with, as done.
Barrick is vigorously up to the guills in Mina Pascua theft lawsuit, involving fraud to the country of Chile.
Via: expired at law by 2006, ex LAC 1994 claims, done intentionally in favor of TESOROS claims at ABX's insiders will. Namely:
AMARILLOS 1-3000, part of Protocol Pascua Lama 2004, yet, are no metallic claims areas!.
Via: Criminal Trial re-opened in Chile 2010.
Via: Civil proceedings involving Mina Pascua injunctioned from Barrick 2001-2011
Via: Constitutional proceedings, intended to challenge the validity of PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL in Chile.
Via: Strong Argentine national sentiment against Barrick, as matter of public Domain.
Via: Strong adverse sentiment against Barrick in Dominican Republic as matter of public domain.
Via: Strong sentiment of true owners of Pierina Mine in Peru who remain unpaid to date by ABX et al whom sold Pierina to Barrick on record.
Quite the promtuary if you toss in Bopal, Diaguita Natives stolen 50,000 hectares to bragg they have land around and nearby MINA PASCUA CHILE. Add Shoshone people and Tanzania, and you may be getting part of the picture of how has Barrick afflicted the country of Chile and some of its prominent miners 1996 to date.
******** set that appart from ********
It looks very distant to Mr. Jorge Lopehandia's wholly owned Mina Pascua area exploitation concessiona for all concessionable mineral substances, at 2011 registered in Chile, as of matter of public domain.
Whomever owns that asset, owns MINA PASCUA CHILE concessionable mineral rights, in an area that engulfes completely LAC 1994 claims.
LAC 1994 salts & nitrates claims are the only MINA PASCUA area valid to Barrick in Chile 1994 to date, at law. see image SERNAGEOMIN MAP at www.minapascuachile.com
While I too agree Barrick should be halted as well as MWR, I believe it has not happened for one reason only. MWR is halted based on an acquisition which will be more than 50% of it's business for the next year. These are the rules of the exchange. However, though losing Pascua Lama is certainly material to Barrick, even it's loss does not merit a halt, necessarily, because Pascua Lama does not represent 50% of Barrick's profile. Therefore, by the rules of the exchange, they need not halt.
So, the regulators are following their regulations properly, it is just that the regulations are poor. Rather than having a 50% threshold, the criteria should be that of "materially significant change." Certainly, losing Pascua Lama is a materially significant change to Barrick.
Finally, if it is true, and there is no clarity yet, that Barrick failed to disclose to their shareholders any negative court decisions from Chile, then, again, they should be halted and all investors made clear of the Chilean court decisions that affected Barrick either positively or negatively. Only then can investors make a properly informed decision.