InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 29
Posts 5534
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 01/12/2006

Re: Tibby post# 981

Saturday, 10/27/2012 2:44:21 AM

Saturday, October 27, 2012 2:44:21 AM

Post# of 1734
It doesnt change the fact that Barrick will owe SLV the money in return for not making good on the contract. In fact, I bet SLV will be able to sue Barrick over this matter or there is a heavy break up fee. SLV is doing NOTHING WRONG at this point. Its not fraud to lay claim in regards to a contract. In fact, its enforecable by most courts of law by settlement either goods or money in return plus damages.

People have known about this for years and since Pascua Lama is costing 5 billion more than expected and is delayed. I dont think the situation changes for some time. Meanwhile, SLV cntinues to get streams from other Barrick sites. You can make a stink about this all you want. Barrick will ultimately pay due to this, not SLV.

Plus, Ive seen the CEO of this company on TV and nobody pressed him about PL. Dont you think people on CNBC would at least ask?? I know the stock gets suggested on TV by many commentators and they know full well about this issue. You see, its non issue. Barrick will either fullfil the contract or take it up the ass.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent WPM News