Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
how does this deal help PSPW?
unfortunately the PPS has decreased,$.80 seemed cheap-now it is just lost money and seen as the higher priced stock
looking forward to reading the "facts"- I have read both of Barnett's posts on Yahoo with the last being the poisoning of cattle alledgedly by Bandera's actions. Certainly very hostile actions (either by Bandera or Barnett), I don't know who is right or who is wrong but certainly agree with one comment by Barnett that this issue is very emotional and has cost both Barnett and Bandera sides money, including shareholders during a time period of high silver prices.
Selling the property to some new group seems like the only viable alternative-too much history between these two sides
sorry I just don't think it is that simple.
Please explain how Bandera could have started mining without these surface rights
LOL-please lets keep it in real world
1) Supreme Court-Is the written opinion out yet? if not then you really do not know what was decided.
2) Bandera-always wins-Bandera's news release stated they lost. Bandera thought this was the best legal course of action. A year of waiting and they lost. Was this Bandera's plan? to wait a year??
This is hardly winning all the time.
by all means try to put a positive spin on it but even Bandera's own news release stated that they lost
you want Bandera to keep doing what they are doing? this is foolishness.
They lost at the Supreme Court. What is next International arbitration?
looking at the prior news releases Barnett wanted to litigate in Arizona, BAndeera picked the location and lost.
Maybe Mexican Supreme Court agreed and the said the legal battle should be in the US.
Bandera needs to change something. So far the legal fight has been lost, time has been lost, money has been lost, surface rights have gone somewhere else and YOU want the Bandera to continue this?
what a waste
point 2) surface rights v mining rights- am not familar with Mexican law but I would think mining rights must be give access (other their rights can never be exercised) thus either deal is worked out with surface rights owners or it ends up in court.
this sitation is comparable to oil & gas rights in the US. landowners/surface right owners either work out a deal or they end up in court and they will lose-they must give access to oil&gas
agree-so the issue are 1) how long will the legal case take? or 2) is a settlement even possible?
LOL-what a joke-reality check please-Bandera put a news release stating that it lost-
are now saying that Bandera has put out a false news release?
should I notify the legal authorities that Bandera has committed fraud by putting out a false news releases?
do you think the insiders are buying Bandera shares as result of this "false" information.
fine with me-work out a deal---In Barnet's post he mentioned that a new company be involved. This would appear to remove him from the picture. Barnett and Bandera get part of the profits (no comment on the split he proposed) but this suggestion seems to satisfy your objective of removing Barnett. Given the emotions Barnett probably wants nothing to do with Bandera either.
Lets split it up and have Bandera end with something and dealing with anyone but Barnett
PPS will double and go up from there!!!!!!!!!!!
perhaps-I read operating agreements from a number of different industries (I have not read this one) typically the operator is given very very broad authority to conduct business.
also from the pictures on the Bandera web site it is clear that Bandera played an active role in the operations. When this occurs both sides can point the finger to each other claiming the other side was improperly meddling in each others affairs.
I sincerely doubt that the people shown in Bandera's pictures had no involvement in the operations. Bandera's news releases stated that they were involved.
yes or no do you want a settlement?
your post makes no sense- basically you are claiming that Barnett says there is no problems-HUH????
Then what the heck is this dispute about???????
if Barnett is the operator for Bandera (and therefore Barnett speaks for Bandera) and this case was lost for Bandera from day 1
why are you so opposed to a settlement which includes approval from the Mexican court system?
it is equally true that Bandera, its officers and directors could be found liabile for their misdeeds and award all sorts of damages to Barnett and BSL.
Since Bandera was the purchaser they would be the ones with the obligations to perform.
Most likely the court will ignore all the moaning and groaning about personal liability. Bandera either performed under the purchase contact or it did not.
do you trust the Mexican court system to enforce its rulings?
If yes then IMO a court approved settlement has the same weight as a court order. Please explain why you disagree
If the answer is no that there is NO trust in the Mexican court system then IMO this whole thing is a waste of time.
but Barnett can not be trusted (so says you) and Barnett has no money (so says you)--now you posted that BGL can collect damages from Barnett from a Mexican court.
not sure how it works in Mexico but it is very hard to get personal judgements from corporate actions.
so what do you the resolution to the issue?
If there is no settlement then here are the options I see
1) ongoing litigation
2) Bandera walks away
3) Barnett walks away
I don't see #2 or #3 so everyone is left with #1-How long do you see this from a court resolution? and if there is a court resolution then do you see Barnett from honoring the court resolution? If Barnett would honor that court resolution then why wouldn't he honor a court approved settlement?
Basically I can only interpret your comment that this deal is fatally flawed and it can NEVER overcome Barnett's involvement. Even with a court approved settlement or a court approved verdict either way Barnett can not be trusted and this deal is dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so the headline really is EarnestDD believes BGL Mexican deal is dead!!!!!!!
a legal settlement, signed, sealed, notarized approved by the court system is a done deal.
his posted note sounded rational. take a deal and move on
Bandera says they are unsure if they are going to continue the case or not (see news announcement) I rely on this statement as being accurate.
IMO it makes perfect sense to read what the Supreme Court court says, then obtain opinion from lawfirm, assess & consider what they say particularly in relationship to their past comments and advice, get a cost estimate for next step and then make an informed decision.
Barnett made a post on Yahoo that sound like he wants to settle. makes sense to me. litigation only works for the lawfirms. I think is really positive that BArnett made this post after winning at the Supreme Court.
Why continue? work out a deal will be very positive for PPS
not even Bandera has said that-why the emotion attached to this issue?
POSTED ON: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_B/threadview?m=tm&bn=81673&tid=6&mid=7&tof=10&frt=2
I am George Salazar Barnett, the legal representative of Minera San Jorge S.A. de C.V. or "MSJ" for short. I am weighing in on this bulletin board to assure all the people who invested in Bandera Gold Ltd. these past five years that BGL is not a fraud, nor has it invested in a bad deal or a bad project. For reasons they know and understand, but refuse to disclose truthfully and in a straightforward manner, BGL decided unilaterally decided to file its unfounded and ultimately ill-fated litigation. Our intent has never been to deny BGL participation or vesting in Cinco Minas or in Gran Cabrera. All the idiotic name calling, misleading press releases and half-truths have not resulted in a single good result for Bandera Gold Ltd.'s shareholders. The continuing rancor related to this dispute is not about legal matters, it it about egos which while serious concerns, are not "legal matters" per se. MSJ has offered to work in good faith to settle any and all disputes, personal or ego-driven, and any perceived legal disputes in a business-like manner. Since April and May we have presented third parties willing to take over the Cinco Minas project, pay all indebtedness and fund further mine exploration and development. In an effort to divorce the matters pending or issues presented, we have pointed out that at current precious metal prices, as before the gold in the ores pays for all operations, leaving silver as a net profit product before taxes. In our offer, BGL could take USD $ 10.00 per ounce, MSJ USD $ 10.00 per ounce (when originally, in Jan., 2006 BGL was entitled to take USD $ 5.40 and MSJ $ 3.60 per ounce of silver produced and sold as the silver price was around USD $ 9.00 per ounce. In our offer, we would each start at USD $ 10.00 per ounce and the third party would take the remainder, the arms-length, third party taking over the project would earn US $ 20.61 at current silver prices. There are three options presented: (1) BGL buys out MSJ, or MSJ buys out BGL; and (2) an independent third party (read as a new Junior Mining Exploration Co.) "NewCo" steps in and the shareholders in BGL get a real chance to make a lot of money for the patience and faith and trust they erroneously deposited in BGL's management, by getting the upside on the stock issued to BGL, and even, possibly dividends from NewCo; and the (3) position, is to continue this illogical, irrational fight. This has cost all the locals their work and millions of dollars in losses to BGL and MSJ. This last possibility, number 3, is apparently the one BGL has apparently myopically decided to take. This means MSJ must continue to defend itself in a dispute originated in a fit of pique or due to perceived "insults" the Board of Directors of BGL has invented in the dark corners of their psyche. This means MSJ is obligated to defend itself vigorously from undeserved, unfounded and improperly advanced attacks.
or nowhere
no trades today-suggest that the "IR" team use their lunch money to buy some shares at $.002 LOL
NP in waiting and seeing. please post link when the mining title is recorded
so what? money is involved it is a big silver property why Bandera let it happen?
where was Bandera's management let it happen?
sorry your explanation is far too simple. Bandera lost at the Supreme Court-this is not a criminal case but a contractual dispute. Criminals don't win they lose. right now Bandera lost so who is the criminal ???? Try Bandera
it goes back to court only IF BAndera take it there and only IF that court decides to hear and if the Supreme Courts written opinion has not already decided the issue.
there is whole bunch of IF's
Bandera's news release made it clear that they were going to wait
What role does Barnett have in Southridge? officer, director, consultant 10% shareholder?
Please explain
funny how companies want to make someone not with the company the scapegoat.
A legal dispute comes up. the company is the hero and Barnett is the villian but the Supreme Court (the last court of law to render an opinion) says Barnett is right. Yet somehow the Company is still cast as the hero and Barnett is the villian
Why?
Barnett is not part of the company and is entitled to defend his position which is obviously totally different from the company. IMO nothing wrong with this.
Given the Supreme Court verdict it seems Barnett is the hero with someone else needing the role of the villan.
grasping at straws, hoping against hope. its always darkest before the dawn
penny stocks are almost always based on hope and promises-the good ones anyway.
the bad ones are smoke and mirrors. IMO DGRI is a good play but that does not mean it will work out..
you are making contradictory comments-first you comment that disinformation spread by the internet has hurt the stock. Then you comment that the company has not even began to spread the word and observe that $133,583 dollar volume has traded supported by a chart which actually shows the pps has increased from .0016 to .0025. My calculation shows this is to be 56% INCREASE!!!! in 2 months.
where is the damage caused by the disinformation spread by the internet???
why? the way they have structured the company a temporary low price helps them. how? fix low price now for internal deals, then announce a new property deal
please gimme a break. what "disinformation"? Any real investment interest in the stock would drive the stock price up.
Management should and could easily overcome the "disinformation" spread by the internet.
today's trading volume is 62,000 at .0023 represents $142.60 worth of trading.
IMO the reality is that there is little investment interest.
why? litigation and confusion on who owns what. investors are not stupid, a little internet searching and you can quickly find out that there are 3 competing claims on this property-2 public companies and one private. The share prices of both public companies are down with little trading volume.
That is the reality that I see. Mining is risky enough, penny stock stocks are risky enough without the risks of knowing which group might actually own the property.
The reality that I see is litigation for the foreseeable future, no end in sight and there not even worth the speculation value one can normally put on penny stocks or a mining stock.
SAD- looks like a great property
Please provide your definition of "veriable proof"
proof? -there is information on pinksheets.com and the companies website
Who is "Crowne" referenced in your email?
I just think a summary of the CC should be stickied. It does not matter to me who actually does it.
not very substantial or meaningful. price pps is below $.01 Website is working now but has NOT always worked in the past. Certainly hope that works in the future but even the SRGE can not guarantee that. Heck disclosure from SRGE says their entire business is at risk,
Does have SRGE have a gold mine or a silver mine? SRGE seems to be focused on the silver.
I agree that there are lots of bad things that go on in the world but this forum is to discuss Southridge.
Your post references a "real" company please post your definition of what a "real" company is and reference your discussion to Southridge.
SRGE is trading at $.0025 which is sub penny. The price per share alone tells everyone there are issues with this company.
SRGE has financial statements. Those statements should be read by all interested parties. Those statements do show debt some of which can be convertible. This is good disclosure that "REAL" companies make. IMO just because there is debt and/or that debt can be converted into shares does not make the company less "REAL". Now as a shareholder or potential shareholder those issues certainly are cause for concern.
I would be far more concerned with Companies that did not have information available
I suspect your definition of "real" companies is limited to Companies that trade on the NYSE, AMEX or NASDAQ.
sub penny stock have lots risks do your DD
?? website is real. company is real. it does trade.