"They" agreed to be bound to put the agreement proposed to TAM...

"They" agreed to be bound to put the agreement proposed to TAM shareholders - nothing could be finalised until shareholders voted yes - bit like making a bid for a house subject to finance but in this case another bidder crashed the party and put forward a higher bid - TAM sticking to its binding agreement with Metal X presented their "offer" to TAM shareholders but were also obliged to present NST's offer as well...the only thing Metal X could argue is if there is a clause specifically excluding other bidders making their own "offers" to TAM shareholders...

Any contract will bound to have parts that could be argued over but given this deal was 100% hinged on TAM shareholder's voting yes to it then what are Metal X trying to push? Seems like their "personal" beef should be with NST or even more sensible - they should have raised their bid???

Seems like a big boy trying to a bully a little boy to me EXCEPT if there was a specific clause excluding other bidders?? From what I can read from Metal X - they just arguing they thought they had a binding agreement?? not that there was a specific clause in the proposal to be put to TAM shareholders... for my money - Metal X have more cash to try force TAM to give up something by dragging out obscure legal arguments knowing NST would want to get a move on...

Crap situation though lucky for TAM they have legals on the board.. wait and see I guess..