Member Info for addicknt

Thanks, Pbow. You really would think that based upon this, and various other comments made, that the case is clear-cut...but the suspense is killing!

Pbow, that would be great. I should also have been clearer with my language; I didn't mean "overturn", I meant "ignore", which is the situation that pertains in the UK. "Overturn" would only be relevant if the result of a referendum is legally binding...and I don't know the answer to that.
The current argument facing the court is obviously not about mining itself (which I pointed out ages ago), it's about whether a referendum on the issue is constitutional or not. From what I've read, the constitution seems to make clear that it isn't, but then again, I know two-thirds of feck-all about their constitution. It also appears that in the various submissions to the court, the arguments spilled-over into discussion about mining and my guess is that this wouldn't have happened in a UK court; witness what happened when that woman brought a case to court which centred on Brexit. It wasn't about Brexit itself, but was about the role of parliament in the decision-making process.
Perhaps you could also ask your wife if the government can appeal against the court's decision? Is there a higher authority? Seems unlikely, but you never know.

Pbow, I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking if the government could overturn the court's decision, but whether they can overturn the result of a referendum. The two things are not the same.

Does anyone know if referenda in Equador are 'binding' on the government, or are they 'advisory', as they are in the UK?
Obviously, if they are the latter, the government can ignore the result (ring any bells?)
As far as the current situation is concerned, the constitutional case appears to be quite clear; the government has the final say on issues concerning mineral extraction, which begs the question; why has this got this far?
I firmly believe that eventually Cascabel will move ahead. My fear is that the potential legal wrangles could take years and, more importantly, deter further inward investment - particularly from risk averse banks.
It's astonishing to think a very small group of people could have such a negative effect upon the economy, but then again, we have exactly the same issue with any infrastructure development in this country. A minority dictating to the majority.

Don't fret, there are $2bn worth of deals, all lined-up and ready to go.

Well, I don't know about you lot, but I'm Happy, Chilled and Relaxed.

The thing is, I regard him as being no different to a teenage boy who, like all of us, spent endless hours in dull maths lessons doodling pictures of cars flying into space and meeting strange-looking little green men.
Sorry, I'll correct that; there is a difference...about $1bn. Otherwise, we're just the same...except I'm bigger and better looking than him.

Sorry, Pilgrim, but I don't buy the Musk schtick.

nomadic, quite right. Unless Musk gets his chequebook out and waives an irresistible offer under Secker's nose, Tesla should be ignored. The company's future is currently set towards Asia and I can't necessarily see the attraction of doing a deal with an unreliable drug user.

It's even more astonishing once the background is understood.
The company supposedly granted him a verbal indemnity that it would pick-up the CGT bill for him selling shares in the company. No shareholder approval was sought and effectively, because he WAS the company and the NEDs were no more than his poodles, he granted the indemnity to himself.
Never have I seen anything like this. And yet he thinks he's the aggrieved party in all of this.
It is to be hoped the court will tell him to take a hike and that the SFO pulls it's finger out.

Suggest you guys have a look. It's almost impossible to fathom the sheer brass neck of Mr Terry.

My guess is that the long delay centred upon the assumption made about copper prices. As we all know, in the context of todays prices its quite bullish, and I'd assume there was a great deal of debate about it.

You have covered all the options, zoros, although 2 isn't really an option for the simple reason no amount of research can predict the outcome of the CC's decision.
As for me, I've taken the option 3 route, as I'm a bit too long in the tooth to be taking such a gamble.

London, there are two things I find difficult to believe in that statement; one, that he could run anywhere, let alone 400m, and second, he could get over a hurdle without the assistance of a hoist.

Indeed. Let's hope so.

DBW, well, that's not exactly the only thing which has changed, is it?

dontpanic, investing isn't about being either "weak" or "brave", it's about cool-headed logic. Let emotion get in the way and you're totally fecked.

Earthling, I wasn't referring to the main holders...they have no alternative but to hold.

earthling, you obviously think it's worth the risk and good luck to you.
I do wonder what's been going through the minds of those folk who've been holding millions of shares which they bought when the sp was in the pennies? They've been sitting on very significant profits and to see it being put at risk like this must be unbearable.

Grim, you are absolutely right, but the problem is one of the short to medium term. A decision in favour of a referendum will create huge uncertainty and the sp will be hammered. In this situation, who, in their right mind would want to run with that uncertainty? Surely, most investors will sit back on the sidelines and wait for a decision? If it's positive, then there'll be plenty of time to buy-back, albeit it will not be possible to get rock-bottom prices.
But, what's better; miss the bottom of the market by a few pence, or risk losing the lot? There is only one rational position to hold in this temporarily, binary situation.