Evidentiary facts pertaining to Lopehandia vs Barrick - pascau....Please note: the below information was written by Grand P - post 15875
Not sure why the questions, all the info has already been put out by MSX about Pascua and why JRL owns it.
Quote:
So, I say it again to JL or anyone else....give me the court case number in which JL (or even Villar) was awarded title as JL claims happened.... every other day on this board.
Answer: C-1912-2001
Quote:
The Villar Legal Proceedings and the 2001 Injunction:
(62) on about late 2000 and prior to the commencement of the Villar Legal Proceedings, the Optionor and Villar, while reviewing Court records noticed that Llanos was proposing to transfer the Underlying Tesoros Mining Claims to what was stated to be his employer, Minera Nevada;
(63) on about March 4, 2001, Villar commenced legal proceedings in the 14th Civil Court of Justice of Santiago, Huerfanos 1411, Court Action No. C-1912-2001 (also known herein as the “Villar Legal Proceedings”);
(64) Villar commenced the Villar Legal Proceedings at the instructions of the Optionor and for the benefit of the Optionor;
(65) at all material times the Optionor funded Villar and the Villar Legal Proceedings, including both the commencement of the Villar Legal Proceedings and all times thereafter;
(66) at all material times the Optionor instructed Villar regarding the Villar Legal Proceedings, including both the commencement of the Villar Legal Proceedings and all times thereafter;
(67) from the commencement of the Villar Legal Proceedings to the date of this Agreement, Villar has held the Villar Legal Proceedings in trust as a trustee for the sole benefit of the Optionor;
(68) the reason the Villar Legal Proceedings were commenced in the name of Villar was that Villar was the registered owner of the Amarillo North and Amarillo South Mining Claims and Villar was named as the seller in the Mina Pascua Written Purchase Agreement;
The 2001 Injunction:
(69) on about June 5, 2001 in the Villar Legal Proceedings, the 14th Civil Court of Justice issued an injunction which prohibited Llanos from transferring or encumbering the Underlying Tesoros Mining Claims to Barrick (the “2001 Injunction”);
(70) a copy of the 2001 Injunction, both in the Spanish language and in the English Language is attached hereto and marked as Schedule “G”;
(71) the 2001 Injunction remains in full force and effect;
(72) Barrick has attempted to remove the 2001 Injunction at least 20 times;
(73) each attempt by Barrick to remove the 2001 Injunction has been unsuccessful;
(74) as a result, the Underlying Tesoros Mining Claims remain registered in the name of Llanos and, in particular, the Underlying Tesoros Mining Claims are not registered in the name of Barrick as suggested by the March 29, 2011 letter from Barrick;
The 2006 Trial Court Judgment:
(75) within the Villar Legal Proceedings, a trial was held before the Judge, Mrs. Maria Isabel Reyes Kokisch, Subrogating Judge of the 14th Civil Court of Justice;
(76) subsequently, the 14th Civil Court of Justice issued a judgment on about June 19, 2006 (the “2006 Trial Court Judgment”);
(77) the 2006 Trial Court Judgment found that the Mina Pascua Written Purchase Agreement was null and void;
(78) the reasoning for such finding included the fact that the judge did not believe that the purchase price in the written Mina Pascua Written Purchase Agreement was the agreed upon purchase price;
(79) the Court ordered that the Amarillo North and Amarillo South Mining Claims be restituted to Villar;
Barrick’s Appeal to the Court of Appeal:
(80) Barrick appealed the 2006 Trial Court Judgment to the Chile Court of Appeal;
(81) on about October 1, 2007 the Chile Court of Appeal issued a judgment (the “2007 Court of Appeal Judgment”) and allowed Barrick’s appeal and found that there had been certain procedural errors in issuing the 2006 Trial Court Judgment;
Villar’s Application to the Supreme Court of Chile:
(82) on about October 6, 2007 the Supreme Court of Chile heard an application by Villar (the “2007 Supreme Court Judgment”);
(83) the Supreme Court of Chile did not grant Villar’s application on the grounds that the proper procedure for Villar to follow was to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Chile;
Barrick’s Position:
(84) the Optionee provided to the Optionor and the Optionor has read the letter dated March 29, 2011 from the General Counsel for Barrick, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Schedule “H”.
(85) the General Counsel for Barrick was wrong when she stated that the Court of Appeal issued a judgment on June 28, 2008 (the “2008 Court of Appeal Judgment”) in which it sanctioned Judge Isabel Reyes Kokisch for having issued the 2006 Trial Court Judgment;
(86) the General Counsel for Barrick was also wrong when she stated that the mining claims in question were not near Pascua Lama;
Villar’s Appeal to the Supreme Court of Chile:
(87) as a result of the 2007 Supreme Court of Chile Ruling, Villar filed a notice of appeal in the Chile Supreme Court;
(88) the appeal of the 2007 Court of Appeal Judgment was held and on November 28, 2008 the Supreme Court of Chile issued its judgment (the “2008 Supreme Court Judgment”);
(89) the 2008 Supreme Court Judgment validated the 2006 Trial Court Judgment;
(90) the 2008 Supreme Court Judgment ordered that the 2006 Trial Court Judgment be re-issued;
(91) the 2008 Supreme Court Judgment did not find any fault with Judge Isabel Reyes Kokisch relating to the 2006 Trial Court Judgment;
AI
