Ann: Appendix 4D and Half Year Accounts, page-26

RBX. I am truly appreciative of your answer, and the time given to it. Thank you. I understand the reasoning very well for the pragmatic commercial decision to settle...by both sides. You speak of eminent lawyers with legal views, of legal challenges and "no doubt gritted teeth" but again fail to even hint at what the dispute was about. This is the best answer I have seen "why" they settled but is completely devoid of the "what" the dispute was about.

Your answer is akin to KZA leveraging NOX through what you believe sounds like dubious litigation that would fail in a court of law but the cost of defense was greater than a payout, therefore your remarks of the "no doubt through gritted teeth". Thus they paid to avoid further and prolonged damage to the company. Not sure if KZA management would agree with your slant on this. Either way, you can tell the exact same story in reverse for KZA future prospect of raising funds as well.

Anyhow I will realize it is a waste of time here on this board asking the "what" question and will seek my answer via more appropriate channels. Thanks for your time as I know how much you loathe wasting it on me.