Ann: Company Update, page-45

By Tuesday we should get some idea of wether MLX are just last minute posturing to try to sway share holder votes in their favour with the latest BIG financial loss threats if one votes NST.

There can be no other purpose for this announcement other than to try to sway and intimidate SH voters on Monday, plus I don't think this type of, we have financial might and you will pay threat is entirely legal.

'if you don't do as I say it will cost you big money" was the message.

There is obsoletely no righteous legal point being put forward in that communication, just an intimidating message.

MLX must be at the limit of their ability to improve the offer to not have done so, else they really do believe they have a case.

If a certain sequence of event happens in my books this fulfils the terms of the HOA in both cases, I don't think MLX will have much of a case.

I.E. If SH vote to reject MLX deal, clause 8 terminates the deal, as the deal is conditional.

The deal being terminated with MLX, fulfils the NST condition to terminate the MLX deal so that the NST deal is active.

Both agreements are signed and binding as rightly claimed by MLX, but they are also "conditional" on SH and other approvals. So a binding deal does not guarantee MLX or NST success as the contract can be negated by the SH vote, Aboriginal Land Commission or Government not approving it.

One thing for sure solicitors will sting and string them and Tanami along regardless and share price will be depressed until this is sorted.

The SP will likely have either a big up or a big down on Tuesday depending on wether MLX really believe it is worth pouring money into fighting this.

I am pretty sure that the very favourable deal MLX though they almost had in the bag that got spectacularly usurped, pissed some big egos off, so worse case is this has turned into an ego trip tantrum and MLX blindly fight a case they may lose.

Not that complicated, but will take months of solicitors barristers court dates to come to the logical conclusion.

Plus I am not sure if, the NST clause that wants the MLX contract terminated
is a written in stone you must do this requirement.

If they view this to be the case they might counter sue if the vote goes to MLX.

As that clause is ambiguous in its wording, it could mean the NST contract is not active if this clause is not met or it could mean, the MLX deal must be terminated as part of the contract.

Not at all happy with the situation.