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.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

MountainWest Resources Inc. C.MWR



CSE:MWR - Post by User

Comment by MTStackon Mar 15, 2024 12:54pm
45 Views
Post# 35935215

RE:RE:Summary of Lawsuit C 11777-2020

RE:RE:Summary of Lawsuit C 11777-2020It is not illegal for an entity to own more than one concession on the same land. This is proved by the lawsuits, C 719-2011 filed by Cristobal Lopehandia, and C 560-2012, filed by JL.  Both of these suits tried to nullify Los Amarillos 1-3000 concessions because they were overstaked by the Tesoros and CMN had not objected to the overlap.  The verdict to C 719-2011 stated in #24: "it can be seen that the Mr. Unda Llanos – formal owner of the belongings "Tesoro 1 1/30" to “Tesoro 12 1/5" - said each one of them acting on a petition from the Mining Company Nevada S.A. , who at the time would have been his employer, and in whose name would be transferred such belongings when these were constituted, what follows then concludes that the Mr Unda Llanos acted as a true representative of defendant company for such purposes."

The action for the nullity of Los Amarillos 1-3000 concessions was rejected, and both the Los Amarillos 1-3000 and the Tesoro concessions validly exist to this day.

On the other hand, two different entities/persons can not own a concession over the same area. This is the reason that neither Villar's nor JL's claims could ever be constituted as concessions.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>