With GBU you should get into more details in your deeper cover. There are quite spicy parts of the set aside request regarding the arbitrators integrity, independce and impartiality.
For Rise, each side had 10 minutes to do oral arguments on the issue of "abandonment". This would imply that the Court agrees that vested rights were in place in the 1950's, because the mine was operating before and at the time zoning laws came into effect. The historical tests for abandonment come from Hansen Brothers vs Nevada County (a 1996 court case), where the Court said vested mining rights are waived only on the occurrence of two factors 1) actual operator intent to abandon the mine and 2) an overt act, or failure to act, which implies that the operator no longer claims interest in the vested rights. Rise argues that neither of these tests was met, while the County argues they were. While there was a long period of cessation of operations caused by the fixed price of gold at $35 per ounce, preventing economic operation, Rise argues that this was not abandonment by it or previous owners of the surface and mineral rights (separate rights in this case), and court precedents agree with this. The Court made no ruling, gave no indication of when it would make a decision, so we just have to wait it out. Personally, I think we have a good case, but you never know until the Court decides. No news yet. Waiting on the court. If a yes. Opens up $650mm usd judgement for RISE
Thanks Bob, I’ll take a look. You’re right in that vested rights are usually included, it just takes some roundabout proceedings to get to that ruling. Funnily enough I’m familiar with the Hansen brothers case so that’s interesting. The intent bit will be the longest to argue, but if RISE wasn’t the original operator then intents rests with their predecessor so the question becomes ‘does intent to abandon, or abandonment full stop, be carried over to the next operator’, so we have two companies to get our heads around here. Considering the fixed gold price aspect we should be fine. On the surface seems like a good case, and better a monetary award than mining license / practical equivalent back.
With GBU you should get into more details in your deeper cover. There are quite spicy parts of the set aside request regarding the arbitrators integrity, independce and impartiality.
This was from ceo or RISE to me. Court expected to rule very shortly
For Rise, each side had 10 minutes to do oral arguments on the issue of "abandonment". This would imply that the Court agrees that vested rights were in place in the 1950's, because the mine was operating before and at the time zoning laws came into effect. The historical tests for abandonment come from Hansen Brothers vs Nevada County (a 1996 court case), where the Court said vested mining rights are waived only on the occurrence of two factors 1) actual operator intent to abandon the mine and 2) an overt act, or failure to act, which implies that the operator no longer claims interest in the vested rights. Rise argues that neither of these tests was met, while the County argues they were. While there was a long period of cessation of operations caused by the fixed price of gold at $35 per ounce, preventing economic operation, Rise argues that this was not abandonment by it or previous owners of the surface and mineral rights (separate rights in this case), and court precedents agree with this. The Court made no ruling, gave no indication of when it would make a decision, so we just have to wait it out. Personally, I think we have a good case, but you never know until the Court decides. No news yet. Waiting on the court. If a yes. Opens up $650mm usd judgement for RISE
Thanks Bob, I’ll take a look. You’re right in that vested rights are usually included, it just takes some roundabout proceedings to get to that ruling. Funnily enough I’m familiar with the Hansen brothers case so that’s interesting. The intent bit will be the longest to argue, but if RISE wasn’t the original operator then intents rests with their predecessor so the question becomes ‘does intent to abandon, or abandonment full stop, be carried over to the next operator’, so we have two companies to get our heads around here. Considering the fixed gold price aspect we should be fine. On the surface seems like a good case, and better a monetary award than mining license / practical equivalent back.
You should look at RISE