I think that when one is saying that NVAX could have a move like ICPT, one is not talking about NVAX participating in the same dollar move, but in the same percentage move as ICPT. The day before the move in ICPT, the share price was approx $75. It is now approx. $300 (with much variability in between). The price increased 300%. If NVAX has the same percentage move given a starting share price of approx. $6, it would increase to $24. I do not believe that this is beyond the realm of possibility, although I would be completely happy at $12 and ecstatic at $15.
I don't believe that there must be a pandemic to precipitate a large upward move. I think the RVS itself is sufficient.
Here is a more complete write up of the Committee's decision:
After eight months of analysis, the investigating committee released its report with recommendations. Environmental permits for gold and silver project Pascua-Lama developed by the Canadian Barrick Gold should not be revoked. That's one of the conclusions reached by the investigating committee of the House of Deputies discussed in the report.
After eight months of operation, the group chaired by Deputy Giovanni Calderón (UDI) presented a document of consensus among its members. It calls for signing a new environmental permit processed only if [new] breaches are found by the Superintendence of the Environment (SMA).
Last year, that body [SMA] fined 10,000 UTM to Pascua Lama and ruled its temporary closure, after discovering that it did not build the system of water management, one of the most important works contained in its Resolution of Environmental Qualification (RCA) 2006.
The recommendation was for the majority of the members of the commission. They voted against the deputies Alberto Robles (PRSD) and Marcelo Schilling (PS), who noted that revocation of the RCA itself was necessary. "The commission should have a political view, to say as a country to foreign companies in Chile have to meet environmental requirements," Robles said.
I apologize for my flippancy. Your anger at the MSX BOD's ineptness is understandable. It is too bad that the shareholders can not force the BOD to release information as to their plans for getting the CTO revoked.
Per the OSC website: "What do I do if I own shares in a company that has a cease trade order (CTO) issued against it?
You have two options:
1. Hold onto your shares in case the CTO is revoked; or
2. Consider claiming a capital loss on your income taxes.
The company is responsible for complying with Ontario securities law. Once a CTO is issued, it is up to the company - not the OSC - to correct the deficiencies and apply to have the CTO revoked.
You may want to contact the company directly to find out how it is addressing the CTO."
It is neither the OSC nor ABX who is causing the CTO to remain in place. MSX is solely responsible for its own situation, and looking for a scapegoat for its managerial deficiencies, while habitual for MSX, will be as totally ineffectual in this case as it has been in the past.
LOL, I'm getting this information right out of Chilean news websites.
And despite what Tibby wrote on IHub, it was not the mining commission that met today, it was the legislative Investigative Committee of the Chamber of Deputies chaired by Giovanni Calderon, and with a little googling you can find that their decision is exactly what I reported.
So, how is that Cease Trading Order for MSX that has been in effect since September 10, 2013 coming along?
Argentina is actively lobbying the new Bachelet government in Chile to reopen construction at Pascua Lama as soon as possible. Thousands of Sanjuanistas lost their jobs when PL was shut down, and the province is hurting. Only a few hundred are employed on the Chilean side working on the water containment system.
I agree that employment must be a large consideration.
Actually, my logic was just the opposite than you suggest. Sometimes legislators do not want to go on record with an actual vote for/against a measure and will let something die in committee without ever coming for a vote. This is what happened in this instance. If someone actually wanted to push the lawsuit against Barrick, they would need an affirmative majority vote to bring the case to court. As it stands, the case died without being voted on. (This means that not one lawsuit that MSX has filed against Barrick in Chile has ever been brought to court. Each one has either been dismissed, rejected, tabled, or is in investigative limbo, where it will most likely die.)
As a follow up on the committee vote that really counted, here is the decision as reported by elnoticierodelhuasco: The Chamber of Deputies, this Tuesday resolved to approve a consensus document submitted by Deputies Giovanni Calderón (RN) and Patricio Vallespín (DC), which does not consider a recommendation Repeal Resolution of Environmental Qualification (RCA).
IOW, the environmental approvals Barrick already has in place will stand. Chile is NOT revoking Barrick's permits.
Most likely a decision will be announced Wednesday from the Chilean legislative Investigative Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, which has been conducting hearings on Pascua Lama for several months.
Greenpeace is already demanding the disqualification of the president of the Committee, Giovanni Calderon, due to "an obvious conflict of interest" because he once had dinner with Daniela Rojas, Barrick's Manager of Public and Institutional Affairs. Since Greenpeace will never be satisfied unless Pascua Lama is completely shut down, their objections before any decision is announced leads me to believe that the decision by the Committee will be favorable to Barrick.
This combined with the fact that the case against Barrick, which had accused them of not fully halting the operations at Pascua Lama until the water containment facilities were completed, which was analyzed by the House Committee on January 15, was tabled for lack of a quorum, shows that Barrick has already received favorable consideration from the Committee. (I believe this to be the same case that MSX lauded in their 9/18/13 news release as a victory for their lawyer, Barbara Salinas.)
In any case, Pascua Lama's future should be clearer tomorrow.