Motley's and Barrick committed INSURANCE FRAUD

http://business.financialpost.com/news/mining/barrick-gold-corp-to-pay-140-million-in-investor-lawsuit-over-shuttered-pascua-lama-project

James Hughes, Motley's leading lawyer in the bogus settlement, knew from Jorge Lopehandia a year before, that he and Barrick, were setting to defraud the Insurance company and banks, settling S IF Barrick owned MINA PASCUA Chile areas where the Gold is.

Motley's via James Hughes its leading Attorney in the Barrick's case, was fully aware that it had to change the "reasons for complaint" to "Barrick never owned MINA PASCUA Chile and set to defraud the system".

Instead the BOGUS INSURANCE FRAUD SETTLEMENT, is a violation of Civil Trial and Injunction C-1912-2001 stamped in TESOROS titles at last marginal annotation, in Jorge Lopehandia's legal tenure, as issued by the Chilean Mines Commissioner and Mines Registra of vallenar, III Region ATACAMA, the sole legal authority with binding jurisdiction over the MINA PASCUA asset in Chile.

Motley's and James Hughes, provided an alibi for BARRICK to defraud the financial markets.

ThePascuaProject .

2:20 PM (12 hours ago)

to me

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hughes, Jim <jhughes@motleyrice.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Barrick
To: "goldinchile@gmail.com" <goldinchile@gmail.com>

Jorge:

We discussed your proposal this afternoon amongst our three law firms, and have decided to continue on our own. Our class was certified as a class action last week by the court, so we are in a very good position with our securities fraud claims. We wish you the best of luck in your fight against Barrick.

Jim

the PascuaProject .

Mar 3 (11 days ago)

to me

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hughes, Jim <jhughes@motleyrice.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Pascua Lama
To: "goldinchile@gmail.com" <goldinchile@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. JR Lopehandia:

One of the attorneys at Pomerantz forwarded me an email concerning deficiencies of Barrick Gold at Pascua Lama. My firm is the lead plaintiff in a securities fraud suit against Barrick Gold in federal court in New York. Our main arguments are that Barrick misrepresented its compliance with environmental regulations at the Pascua Lama site; that it did not have effective internal controls in its oversight of the project; and that it did not follow correct accounting principles in claiming an impairment to its financial status, and did it too late. Most of the items on the list you provided seem to be concerned with property rights and competition issues – which are not really part of our securities fraud case at all. However, I wondered if it would be useful to have a further communication on the case if you would like.

Best regards,