RE:Materiality Argument Won't Work (my guess permit was fine)JoelBirkin wrote: I am starting to think maybe the permits never got suspended and there never was a drilling blow up issue.
I say that because the non-disclosure of this (if this is true) is such a blatant violation of the rules that they would have no defense whatsoever and would all be sued by investors (US class action for sure by those hungry US litigators), regulators, suspensions, fines, loss of reputation etc.
If the permits got suspended and LIX did not disclose I assume their defense would be "this was not a material event" and therefore no disclosure required. The only disclosure required would be maybe in their quarterly or annual disclosures (as IKN notes).
LIX has 2 assets: Los Angeles and Arizaro. Los Angeles is their flagship project (even check LIX's website where there is a map of the projects and Los Angeles has a Flag on it and gold box). Also, Los Angeles has a resource on it, cost more to buy, and is the focus of the company for the feasilbity study.
My point is the "materiality" defense LIX may raise is a weak attempt and likely won't stand up to investors or the regulators.
The board of LIX contains some respected and experienced people so it is baffling to even entertain the possibility that they decided to withhold this information from the public....but then again Home Capital and Equifax did it too.....so who knows...
I guess we hang tight to see what LIX says and then regardless we wait weeks, months or years before the regulators pounce.
I DON'T THINK THE PERMIT GOT SUSPENDED A FEW MONTHS AGO BECAUSE LIX WOULD HAVE KNOWN HOW RISKY AND STUPID THAT WOULD BE TO NOT DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
Remeber also, this issue is not about the assets or potential but rather the management/directors and the fallout from it IF the IKN story is true...he better hope it is otherwise he will for sure get sued and lose
It could be a a semi-blow up and a partial permit suspension so it is in that grey area.