Translation of Mexican Documents Showing BGL LOST their claim in August 2011.
Here's a translation of the Mexican Documents:
http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ConsultaTematica/Pagi...oID=122590
Mexico, Federal District. Agreement of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, for the day August 17th, two thousand eleven.
C O N S I D E R A N D O:
FIRST. Competition. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has jurisdiction to hear this petition for review, in terms of the provisions of Articles 107, Section IX, of the Constitution of the United Mexican States; 83, section V and 84, section II, of the Law of Amparo, 21, section III, paragraph a) of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation, and as provided in the General Agreement point 5/1999, and the second points and fourth Plenary Agreement 5/2001, under which stands against a ruling by a Circuit Court in direct amparo, which claimed the interpretation of Articles 27 and 104, Section I , of the Constitution of the United Mexican States.
SECOND. Opportunity. The petition for review is timely in accordance with Article 86 of the Law of Amparo, since the judgment was notified on Monday 18 October, two thousand ten, and took effect on Tuesday, October 19 following, by both within ten days for filing the appeal passed on Wednesday October 20 to Thursday, November 4, two thousand ten, discounting twenty days, twenty-four, thirty-October 31 and one and two year November course, in accordance with Article 23 of the Law of Amparo and 163 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation as well as in Circular 23/2010 of the Federal Judicial Council of September 22, two thousand ten. In such conditions, if the appeal was filed on November 4, two thousand ten (as evidenced by the return ********** hander resource in question), it is timely.
THIRD. Background. To illustrate about the context of this case, there should be an overview of the relevant background arising from the nature of the case file:
1. By application lodged on 26 February, two thousand eight, before the officers Common Parts Judicial Council, the State of Jalisco, **********, ******* representatives *** ********** sued, all Variable Capital Corporations and against ********** and ********** in the ordinary commercial, claiming the payment and performance of various deliverables in terms of Article 376 of the Commercial Code, the claim that was upheld by the Fifth Court of the First Judicial Companies in the State of Jalisco, registering with the record number * *********.
Two. Once handled the trial, the July 7, two thousand nine, the trial judge issued a judgment in which it held that the plaintiff, proof of the existence of the obligation under the option contract of November 15 two thousand five, concluded between ********** and **********, so determined:
• **********, acquired 60% of the total participation rights in the property designated as "**********.
• ********** acquired 9% of the participation rights in the mining property designated as **********.
• ********** are condemned to make formal transmission concession titles ********** numbers registered in the Public Registry of Mining.
• ********** are condemned to the signing of the joint operating agreement agreed between the parties that govern the operation of mining properties and that continue to govern the legal relationship to future joint society venture **********, and the exploitation and exploration of mineral properties known both as **********, under the terms of the option contract and industry standards mining.
• The nullity of leases on mining claims, held on April 1, two thousand seven, among **********.
Three. The appeal filed, knowledge of which corresponded to the Ninth Division of the Supreme Court in the State of Jalisco, determined to confirm the decision issued in the first instance.
The final judgment clarified earlier, is what was the act complained at trial guarantees which emanates this means impugning.
Seems like BGL were prevented from trying to register the mining properties in their own company name by the court? Doesn't it?
Here's a translation of the Mexican Documents:
http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ConsultaTematica/Pagi...oID=122590
Mexico, Federal District. Agreement of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, for the day August 17th, two thousand eleven.
C O N S I D E R A N D O:
FIRST. Competition. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has jurisdiction to hear this petition for review, in terms of the provisions of Articles 107, Section IX, of the Constitution of the United Mexican States; 83, section V and 84, section II, of the Law of Amparo, 21, section III, paragraph a) of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation, and as provided in the General Agreement point 5/1999, and the second points and fourth Plenary Agreement 5/2001, under which stands against a ruling by a Circuit Court in direct amparo, which claimed the interpretation of Articles 27 and 104, Section I , of the Constitution of the United Mexican States.
SECOND. Opportunity. The petition for review is timely in accordance with Article 86 of the Law of Amparo, since the judgment was notified on Monday 18 October, two thousand ten, and took effect on Tuesday, October 19 following, by both within ten days for filing the appeal passed on Wednesday October 20 to Thursday, November 4, two thousand ten, discounting twenty days, twenty-four, thirty-October 31 and one and two year November course, in accordance with Article 23 of the Law of Amparo and 163 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation as well as in Circular 23/2010 of the Federal Judicial Council of September 22, two thousand ten. In such conditions, if the appeal was filed on November 4, two thousand ten (as evidenced by the return ********** hander resource in question), it is timely.
THIRD. Background. To illustrate about the context of this case, there should be an overview of the relevant background arising from the nature of the case file:
1. By application lodged on 26 February, two thousand eight, before the officers Common Parts Judicial Council, the State of Jalisco, **********, ******* representatives *** ********** sued, all Variable Capital Corporations and against ********** and ********** in the ordinary commercial, claiming the payment and performance of various deliverables in terms of Article 376 of the Commercial Code, the claim that was upheld by the Fifth Court of the First Judicial Companies in the State of Jalisco, registering with the record number * *********.
Two. Once handled the trial, the July 7, two thousand nine, the trial judge issued a judgment in which it held that the plaintiff, proof of the existence of the obligation under the option contract of November 15 two thousand five, concluded between ********** and **********, so determined:
• **********, acquired 60% of the total participation rights in the property designated as "**********.
• ********** acquired 9% of the participation rights in the mining property designated as **********.
• ********** are condemned to make formal transmission concession titles ********** numbers registered in the Public Registry of Mining.
• ********** are condemned to the signing of the joint operating agreement agreed between the parties that govern the operation of mining properties and that continue to govern the legal relationship to future joint society venture **********, and the exploitation and exploration of mineral properties known both as **********, under the terms of the option contract and industry standards mining.
• The nullity of leases on mining claims, held on April 1, two thousand seven, among **********.
Three. The appeal filed, knowledge of which corresponded to the Ninth Division of the Supreme Court in the State of Jalisco, determined to confirm the decision issued in the first instance.
The final judgment clarified earlier, is what was the act complained at trial guarantees which emanates this means impugning.
Seems like BGL were prevented from trying to register the mining properties in their own company name by the court? Doesn't it?
