Let me see if I can confuse this issue a bit more.
It seems to me that D&C got annoyed (very, very belatedly)by Strike's move to acquire the 70% stake in IAC from MAPSA. Why it was so annoyed is not clear but D&C seem to believe it was such an agregious act on Strike's part that it constituted a breach of the original shareholders agreement and therefore invalidated Strike's option to acquire the further 38.5% of Apurimac Ferrum S.A. that took its stake to 51%. If I read the announcement correctly it is this assertion by D&C that has been struck down by the Peruvian Judiciary.
However, the move by Strike to acquire the 70% stake in IAC from MAPSA and hence the additional 17.15% interest in Apurimac Ferrum S.A. (taking its total stake to 68.15%)is still in dispute between D&C and Strike and has in fact been temporarily suspended by JPM. It is this dispute that D&C should have taken to arbitration under the shareholders agreement and had failed to do so. Hence Strike has, itself, initiated arbitration under the shareholders agreement.
JPM is not defined in the announcement but my guess is that it is the Peruvian Judiciary which makes the suspension of the IAC transaction something to worry about. Having said that though, it is not at all clear how the dispute over the IAC transaction got before the JPM since it seemed D&C's action related to the MAPSA transaction.
It seems to me we are more or less where we have been for the past month or so waiting to find out if we have 51% or 68% of the game.
SRK Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
