i think it's more than likely the case that when ags agreed to settle there are conditions that ags can no longer stick it to quasar legally.
so i guess that leaves people like you and me to do something like asking questions of the relevant players.
now why ags went through the courts instead of a regulator is confusing for me. may have something to do with time contraints and/or processes or whatever.
hi mugsley.
yes we did lose if you consider losing is walking away with what we did which i think is a loss.
we didn't lose the court case. it was settled.
i am not a fair trade lawyer so i don't have all the legal answers and i don't know all the details surrounding the quasar decision to stockpile but i can do my best to try and get an understanding of the fair trade laws and ask questions of the relevant people.
i consider myself to be a reasonable person too.
mugsley you say that confidentiality cost us but this is sort of like stupid rhetoric. you need to clarify. are you talking about quasar confidentiality or alliance confidentiality for example.
hi chris.
my interpretation was accurate. pretty good effort too as it was all from memory.
when ags refer to their asset value they are not only referring to cash in the bank.
ags essentially had the backing of a 25% interest in an international award winning fully permitted producing isr uranium mine.
so as ags stated in the context of the underlying asset value of the company, the settlement did not have a material impact on the financial position of the company.
i will leave it at that but i think i can guess what your reply may be but i already have an answer so fire away if you so desire.
