I guess the excuse for locking in gold price at december rate is because tgey claim the money was transferred and they will claim that the subsequent bank account issues are after the deposit was made. The big question then becomes will there (ever) be another payment and if so will that be recieved efficiently and locked in at current rate. I can see the excuse for this one but that should not be the rule.
Meanwhile without more payments the increasing gold price doesn't seem to be great for bez due to the way this deal is structured? Good to have it in the ground but it seems unclear where we currently stand re liability for patments received. And no word from Qm directors on state of the play?
BEZ REVIEW, page-230
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 755 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
