Replies to post #18370 on Mountainstar Gold Inc (fka MSX)

[ADubiousCharacter]

Why wouldn't Barrick sue MSX?

Good point. I've given it some thought, and if I were strategizing for Barrick, I wouldn't advise a lawsuit for the following reasons:

1) They sued Mr. Lopehandia and won already. He dodged the financial penalty by claiming hardship. So what did Barrick accomplish? Costly litigation with no financial upside, and JL is still mouthing off. Clearly, suing JL and MSX are not a winning proposition financially.

2) On the other hand, by successfully suing Mr. Lopehandia for making false statements, they've already discredited him in the eyes of the investment community. He's continued to rant, and it hasn't much impacted Barrick. Investors haven't discounted Barrick on fears on title problems, nor have major investment dollars flowed into MSX. So if they've already neutralized the threat, why bother rocking the boat?

3) The old expression "Never argue with a fool..." Just by engaging in the debate, Barrick would inadvertently lend credibility to the other side. Better to leave it alone.

4) Well, the fact that they've already shelved the project makes it a low priority to "go after" MSX. Chances are that MSX will run out of money long before ABX even plans to resume the project. Why sue when time is on your side?

[ADubiousCharacter]

Mainland, you make a good point: participants here have very little idea (besides speculation) about what's happening behind the scenes.

But I would also argue that some of what's behind the curtain is being pointlessly withheld.

Take the CTO as an illustration of my argument.

MSX last traded on September 10. It wasn't until November 22 that management even acknowledged the CTO to shareholders. Two months and twelve days to even tell investors what they already know. When Mr. Johnson does discuss the CTO in the monthly progress report, he incorrectly states that the CTO was from October. He offers no explanation for the failing, no update on efforts to resolve it, and no timeline on scheduled hearings or submissions.

Wha...?

What possible strategic reason could there be to keep this information "behind the scenes". It's PR suicide. It makes it seem like he has no plan. A simple, factual statement in early September would have preserved a lot of goodwill.

Unless Mr. Johnson is planning a sneak attack on regulators, I don't see why he should guard as "top secret" his plans to come into compliance.

While I accept your point that participants here are working on scant information, I have to lay some (or all) of the blame for that failing on MSX management.