Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

Highbank Resources Ltd V.HBK

Alternate Symbol(s):  HBKRF

Highbank Resources Ltd is engaged in the business of acquisition, exploration, and development of mineral resource properties in Canada. The company's project includes the Swamp Point North project.


TSXV:HBK - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by cinqueporton Dec 28, 2013 3:29am
183 Views
Post# 22041826

RE:MOAG, another item not completed properly?

RE:MOAG, another item not completed properly?Now Ray,

You know very well that the revised permit required additional key information - that was requested by the Govt - which needed the assistance of another company that specialised in such matters, just as the original permit had input from other sources too. So settle down there..

For someone to hire a lawyer to fight a parking ticket is not that unusual, and you will note that Vic won! HBK gained some valuable Canada wide TV coverage from it all, too. So, your use of the word 'fiasco' might be considered somewhat overly dramatic in these circumstances. If you were a game theorist, Vic's willingness to go the distance would be something that you might take into account before flinging a (frivolous) law suit in Vic's direction.

You should also be able to acknowlege that this lawsuit is unlikely to succeed as HBK consulted lawyers and received the TSX's blessing before they went ahead. It's also notable that unlike the previous court case this is not a challenge over basic ownership, but a challenge over a contracted transaction. The courts tend to be very assertive when it comes to making judgments on contract disputes, as opposed to ownership rights.  I'd be willing to bet that MOAG's lawyers (if they were any good) advised their clients that they were likely wasting time and money on this case, before starting out. 

I suspect that it's extemely unlikely that such a limited legal matter would delay the financing at this point in the game, especially once that permit is issued - remember that it doesw appear as if several parties are interested in providing the financing. And do we really need a buyout, when we're so close to production? A buyout would have been very welcome a couple of years ago, but now? I for one can wait a little longer.

PS - enjoyed the poetry.
Bullboard Posts