TAM Overview, page-6

The Australian in August last year reported the Metal X CEO - Peter Cook as saying what his case was hanging on in relation to TAM:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...l/news-story/4385a7378c35f9c30b924b52a31bc24c

"....Mr Cook said Metals X and Tanami had deliberately excluded a clause that would allow Tanami to walk away if it received a better offer to ensure the deal would succeed.
“Agreements normally have the words ‘in the absence of a higher offer’ attached to them, unless you want them to be legally binding, and there’s typically a break fee in those,” he said. “We agreed to leave it out because they didn’t want me to go away. They wanted to have Metals X on the hook.”
Mr Cook said the legal action was driven both as a matter of principle and by the quality of the asset in dispute....."

They are hanging their case on what was left out of a HOA that had not been ratified by shareholders in the first place?

Ok the HOA left out this clause but I see that as being an incomplete proposal - from my understanding for the HOA to be actually binding it would need to be complete if daylight shows that basic standard clauses were left out then that in itself makes the HOA less secure I would think..

I really can't see Metal X winning this and at best I could see the court awarding them for wasted time on the HOA and possibly legal costs so $1-2mil tops is the downside - for Metal X to be awarded full damages that they are claiming they would need to show that TAM shareholders would have approved their proposal...

you can't argue the HOA was a done deal when it had not been ratified by shareholders but maybe Metal X could get something for hurt feeling on principal and if thats a mil or 2 - then TAM can absorb that no problem IF they lose IMOO..