another Sue message DJ ) 10/24 02:33PM PRESS RELEASE: Sulliden Continues As Owner Of Shahuindo Property> SUE .T
TORONTO, Oct. 24 /CNW/ - Sulliden Exploration Inc. ("Sulliden" or the
"Company") (TSX: SUE) issues this Press Release to correct inaccurate and
misleading statements concerning the ownership of the Shahuindo property in
Peru, which have recently been issued by Century Mining.
In its Press Releases of October 22, 2007, October 4, 2007, September 19, 2007
and August 21, 2007, Century Mining has repeatedly exaggerated and
mispresented the legal effect of the Decision of the Commercial Chamber of the
Superior Court of Lima dated August 9th, 2007.
Further, Century's Press Release of October 22, 2007 is misleading and appears
to be confusing different proceedings and different courts in Peru. Contrary
to Century's assertion of "total transparency", the various court documents
recently posted by Century on its website are selective, self serving and
materially incomplete and, in fact and in law, do NOT support the claims made
by Century in its various Press Releases.
Commercial Chamber did NOT rule on Sulliden's Ownership of Shahuindo
=--------------------------------------------------------------------
Property
=--------
In its Decision dated August 9, 2007 the Superior Court of Lima declared null
and void, on a narrow technical legal ground, the Arbitration Award previously
granted to Sulliden in July 2006. The Court did not rule on the ownership of
the Shahuindo Property. In its decision the Superior Court restored the
competence and jurisdiction of the Judiciary to determine the dispute on the
Shahuindo Transfer Contract, entered into between Algamarca and Sulliden in
November 2002, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. (See partial English
translation of Ruling No 63 of Superior Court dated August 9, 2007, page 2,
paragraphs III and V, available on Century Mining website at
www.centurymining.com - Press release August 21, 2007).
Sulliden has been advised by its lawyers that this decision is wrong in law.
Sulliden has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Peru against the decision
of the Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. Sulliden was
disappointed but not surprised by the decision of the Commercial Chamber.
Sulliden had been uncomfortable with the process and objected to the
composition of the particular judicial panel appointed to hear the petition
and declined to participate in the public hearing held by the Commercial
Chamber on June 27, 2007.
In its Press Release of October 22, Century stated that it has "posted on its
website the August 2007 decision of the Superior Court of Lima nullifying the
2006 arbitration award in Sulliden's favour and its subsequent denial of
Sulliden's request to suspend the effects of that decision as a result of
Sulliden's appeal." Century has NOT posted on its website any subsequent
decision of the Superior Court of Lima denying Sulliden's request to suspend
the effects of the nullity decision because THERE IS NO SUCH SUBSEQUENT
DECISION OR RULING AND THERE WAS NO SUCH DENIAL OF SULLIDEN'S REQUEST BY THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF LIMA.
Further, contrary to Century's statement, the effects of the Superior Court
decision to nullify the arbitration award HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED automatically by
operation of law as a result of Sulliden's appeal to the Supreme Court
(Article 393 of the Civil Procedural Code). Century's Press Release of October
22, is wrong, both in fact and in law, on this point.
Sulliden expects that the nullity decision of the Commercial Chamber of the
Superior Court of Lima will be overturned by the Supreme Court of Peru.
If the Decision is not overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court of Peru, and
the Arbitration Decision is confirmed as null and void, the legal effect will
be that the dispute with regard to the Transfer Contract will remain to be
determined by the Courts. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Peru will not
address the ownership of the Shahuindo property.
If the dispute must be determined by the Courts, Sulliden expects that the
litigation will be decided by the Court in Sulliden's favour, on the merits,
in the same way that the Arbitration Decision was, on the merits, determined
unanimously in Sulliden's favour by the Arbitration Panel following
approximately 23 days of hearing. This is the ONLY Decision on the merits of
the Shahuindo dispute. ALL other Decisions to date are procedural or
administrative in nature.
The Decision of the Arbitration Panel of July 2006 is posted on Sulliden's
website at www.sulliden.com.
Registration of the Shahuindo Concessions in Sulliden's Name Has NOT
=--------------------------------------------------------------------
been cancelled:
=---------------
On September 13, 2006 the SUNARP, the official Peruvian state Registry,
registered the Shahuindo concessions in Sulliden's name. Since that time, for
more than one year, Algamarca has repeatedly attempted, without success, to
have the registration set aside. There is no "administrative processes now
underway to revert the registration of the Shahuindo concessions back into
Algamarca's name" as stated by Century in its October 22, 2007 Press Release,
other than repeated attempts by Algamarca to have the registration set aside
or to obtain some court order seeking to have the registration set aside.
In its May 30th, 2007 press release Sulliden reported that the Courts in Peru
had dismissed legal actions taken by Algamarca challenging the registration of
the Shahuindo mining concessions in Sulliden's name.
On May 31, 2007 Century Mining (Algamarca) issued a press release "refuting
Sulliden's press release (May 30, 2007) and accurately states facts." In that
press release Century commented that "statements implying that Sulliden was
successful in parts of the Shahuindo litigation ..... would be a clear
misrepresentation of the facts". In its press release dated May 31, 2007,
Century denied that the Superior Court of Cajamarca had dismissed the legal
actions taken by Algamarca regarding the status of registration of the
concessions and stated that Algamarca had appealed this position taken by the
Superior Court of Cajamarca to the Constitutional Court of Peru.
Fact: The Superior Court of Cajamarca declared the nullity of the legal action
taken by Algamarca challenging the registration of the Shahuindo concessions
in Sulliden's name (File No. 111-2006). This concluded the action. Algamarca
had not appealed to the Constitutional Court and Sulliden has not been served
with notice of an appeal.
In any event Century seems to have forgotten, or perhaps is not aware, that
Algamarca has previously purported to transfer some of the Shahuindo
concessions to Minera Pilacones S.A. and some to Inversiones Mineras
Sudamericanas S.A. and granted mortgages to Import Export A.C.D.S.A. (granted
by Inversiones Mineras Sudamericana SA), and to Inversiones Mineras
Sudamericanas (granted by Minera Pilacones SA), that in turn these companies
purported to transfer the same concessions to Andean Mining Gold Inc. (a
Panamanian company) and also purported to execute and foreclose on the
purported mortgages. So that, even in Century's perception of "facts", the
purported legal owner is not Algamarca at all but its subsequent purported
transferees, and therefore registration cannot be "reverted back into
Algamarca's name".
Sulliden has appealed decision of 55th Civil Court to cancel injunction:
=------------------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in Sulliden's Press Release of September 21, 2007, Sulliden has
appealed against the decision of the 55th Civil Court of Lima cancelling the
injunction previously granted to Sulliden in August 2006. Century posted on
its website the decision of the 55th Civil Court dated September 12, (not
September 16 as stated by Century) but failed to post the subsequent decision
of the same 55th Civil Court dated September 24 which REJECTED Algamarca's
application for certified copies of the September 12 decision for transmission
to the SUNARP Registry, and failed to post the subsequent decision dated
October 15, 2007 which REJECTED Algamarca's nullity petition of that September
24 decision.
In order to have full and complete "transparent "disclosure of the decisions
of the 55th Civil Court it is necessary to read all THREE decisions as one
document and not just selective parts as disclosed by Century.
Supreme Court upheld Sulliden appeal against injunction:
=--------------------------------------------------------
In its Press Release dated May 31, 2007 commenting on Sulliden's statement in
Sulliden's May 30th Press Release: "Supreme Court upholds Sulliden Appeal" -
Century stated in its May 31 press release the actual status as follows: "The
Supreme Court of Peru has neither heard nor ruled on any matter referenced in
Sulliden's press release". This Century statement is not correct.
Fact: As correctly stated in Sulliden's Press Release of May 30, 2007, the
Supreme Court of Peru ruled on File No. 3146-2006 by Resolution dated May 8,
2007, signed May 23, 2007 by five Supreme Court Judges upholding Sulliden's
appeal against an earlier decision of the Superior Court of Cajamarca which
confirmed the grant in 2004 of a temporary injunction suspending drilling
operations. (This ruling has been posted on Century's website at
www.centurymining.com - Press Release May 31, 2007 entitled Shahuindo
Litigation Documents, pages 2 through 5).
Sulliden stands by and reiterates the correctness of all of the statements
made in Sulliden's press release dated May 30, 2007, including the decision of
the Supreme Court of Peru upholding Sulliden's appeal, and denies any
misrepresentation, as alleged by Century in its press release dated May 31,
2007.
There is no valid injunction restricting Sulliden from entering Shahuindo
=------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
10-24-07 1433ET
Show Headlines
«
»
( DJ ) 10/24 02:33PM PRESS RELEASE: Sulliden Continues As Owner Of -2-
In its Press release of October 22, 2007 Century stated that it had posted on
its website "the 2004 injunction granted by the Civil Court of Cajabamba
restricting Sulliden from entering Shahuindo as well as the Civil Courtroom of
the Superior Court Cajabamba's recent notices regarding inspection of the
Shahuindo concessions to ensure Sulliden has not violated the terms of that
injunction". Again, Century appears to be confused about the legal
proceedings.
The case referred to is four years old from 2003, and refers to the possession
of the mining concessions in Sulliden's 2003 drilling program. In the Peruvian
legal system, to exercise mining concessions requires the authorization of the
land owner. Most of the lands where the concessions are located belong to the
local community. Sulliden has the authorization of the land owners to do the
drilling on the mining concessions and is continuing with its current drilling
program.
In fact the Civil Court of Cajabamba GRANTED Sulliden's appeal against ruling
No. 06 dated August 27, 2007 (See Resolution (a) of Judicial Ruling no 09
dated September 12, 2007, on Century website). The notices referred to by
Century simply order an inspection of the Malvas concession by two expert
engineers (at Algamarca's cost) to establish the location of the Malvas
concession and establish the possible "disturbing acts" within this area.
Sulliden does not object to such inspection.
ABOUT SULLIDEN:
Sulliden Exploration Inc. is a mineral exploration company focused on the
development of its Shahuindo gold and silver Project. The Shahuindo project is
located in northern Peru, in one of the world's most prospective gold and
silver regions, sitting approximately 25 km north of Barrick's Laguanas
Norte-Alto Chicama 1,100,000 oz/gold per year mine; 70 km south of Newmont's
multi-million oz/gold Yanacocha district and 200 km north of Barrick's Pierina
650,000 oz/gold per year mine.
The Shahuindo resource stands at 38 million tonnes grading 0.95 g/t Au and
22.99 g/t Ag, containing 1.2 million oz of gold and 28 million oz of silver
(equivalent to 1.6 million oz of gold at a gold to silver ratio of 1:60) in
the Indicated Category; and 17.2 million tonnes grading 0.62 g/t Au and 12.83
g/t Ag, containing 342,000 oz of gold and 7 million oz of silver (equivalent
to 460,000 oz of gold at a gold to silver ratio of 1:60) in the Inferred
Category - (Resource Estimation - Met-Chem Canada Inc. April 2005 filed on
www.sedar.com).
Sulliden's rights to the Shahuindo property are in dispute and are the
subject of extensive litigation in Peru.
Further information / Risk Factors:
For detailed information and background in the Shahuindo litigation please
refer to Sulliden's Annual Information Form, the Notes to the Company's Annual
and Quarterly Financial Statements and press releases which can be found at
www.sedar.com. For further information on Risk Factors with regard to an
investment in Sulliden please refer to Sulliden's Annual Information Form and
to the summary of Risk Factors in the Company's Management Discussion and
Analysis for the year ended April 30, 2007 and for the quarter ended July 31,
2007 which can be found at www.sedar.com.
Caution regarding forward-looking information:
Statements contained in this document which are not historical facts are
forward-looking statements that involve risk, uncertainties and other factors
that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or
implied by such forward-looking statements. This forward-looking information
includes, or may be based upon, estimates, forecasts, and statements as to
management's expectations with respect to, among other things, the outcome of
legal proceedings, the issue of permits, the size and quality of the company's
mineral resources, progress in development of mineral properties, future
production and sales volumes, capital and mine production costs, demand and
market outlook for metals, future metal prices and treatment and refining
charges, and the financial results of the company. Factors that could cause
such differences, without limiting the generality of the following, include:
volatility and sensitivity to market metal prices; impact of change in foreign
currency exchange rates and interest rates; imprecision in reserves estimates;
environmental risks including increased regulatory burdens; unexpected
geological conditions; adverse mining conditions; political risks arising from
operating in developing countries; legal title to properties, outcome of
litigation, changes in government regulations and policies, including laws and
policies; and failure to obtain necessary permits and approvals from
government authorities; and other development and operating risks.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability. Inferred mineral resources are considered too speculative
geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable
them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that mineral
resources will be converted into mineral reserves.
Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the
forward-looking statements are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed
on these statements, which only apply as of the date of this document. The
Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any
forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise.
/CONTACT: John F. Kearney, President, Tel: (416) 703-8287, E-mail:
contact@sulliden.com; James H. Coleman, Chairman, Tel: (403) 267-8373
wait for the typical d3 rant on this one. more of the yadda yadda yadda "drink Koolaid" all you do is post personal bashes blah blah blah. time that he went on ignore so I can avoid the egomaniacal ramblings of him and his twin bartyboy