I don't wish to further address the veracity of rumours on this...

I don't wish to further address the veracity of rumours on this site because based on the article in Saturday Adelaide Advertiser Newspaper this matter has been ventilated by Royal's management and the rumours are a different issue.

However I would like to share the following with readers gained by reading some of Royal's other announcements on the ASX.

I quote the from the latest ASX announcement.

"Contracts covering the acquisition of Razorback, milestone payments, and the rights to iron ore exploration and development will be unaffected by any challenges between the other parties to those contracts" & “Royal is completely satisfied that its Due Diligence process, backed by the legal advice of a world class legal firm, ensured our acquisition of Razorback was 100% effective." and quoted the announcement "16 September 2009 Royal acquires Razorback Project"


I ask in the 16 September 2009 announcement did Royal's management fail to inform their shareholders that at that time another company "Mawson Metal Group" owned the rights to "Razorback Premium Iron Project" and that was the case when Royal proceeded to execute the same SSA with a payment to Mintech Resources of $250,000 on the 18 September 2009.

On the 10 October 2009 Royal announced a LANDMARK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SIGNED FOR IRON ORE JOINT VENTURE (Sing-tan Agreement) based upon the same 9 & 16 September 2009 Share Sale Agreement (SSA).

On the 13 October 2009 Royal announced a RENOUNCEABLE RIGHTS ISSUE PROSPECTUS to raise the money as well as $4.75million they needed to pay to Mintech Resources Pty Ltd under the same 9 and 16 September (SSA).

See clauses amongst others

"2.15
Purpose of the Rights Issue and Use of Funds
After payment of the costs of the Offer, the funds raised will be applied towards the following:
(a) payment of $4.75 million tranche to Mintech Resources Pty Limited to complete the
acquisition of the Razorback Iron Project as announced to the ASX on 16 September 2009;"

5.7 paragraph 5 under conditions states.

"there being no fact, matter or circumstance known to the Vendors which is reasonably likely to
lead to the cancellation, suspension, forfeiture or surrender of the Tenement or of any reduction
in the area of the Tenement;"

Hey guys what about the fact that still at this time MMG owned the Razorback Premium Iron Project its rights and its tenements?

To overcome the MMG issue it seems that Royal's management at some time after the 16 September 2009 set about to acquire MMG but not before the 13 October 2009 RENOUNCEABLE RIGHTS ISSUE announcement above was that acquisition completed.

The rights issue process continued unabated while the management, never at any time, makes any changes to these documents wording nor do they say to the market that the SSA is no longer valid see clause 5.7 above.

On the 14 October 2009 Royal announces
“Shares Sales Agreement Relating to Mawson Metal Group”

Fast forward to the 17 November 2009, Royal makes an announcement RENOUNCEABLE RIGHTS ISSUE – UNDER SUBSCRIPTIONS.

In this announcement the management further states:

"The Directors of the Company are pleased to advise that the Renounceable Rights Issue closed on 12 November 2009 with Eligible Shareholders taking up 91% of the Rights Issue"

and

"The Directors are very pleased with the high level of support for the Rights Issue and wish to thank the Eligible Shareholders who participated."

On 24 November 2009 Royal announced that ROYAL COMPLETES ACQUISITION OF KEY RAZORBACK IRON PROJECT TENEMENT

and further states that;

"The acquisition was executed by way of a Tenement Sales Agreement to simplify the transaction and further protect share holder’s interests"

Hey guys what about the managements obligation to inform and get approval from those 98,346,862 new shareholder who placed a significant amount of funds into Royal under a document called the 13 October 2009 RENOUNCEABLE RIGHTS ISSUE based on the SSA and now their money is being used in a totally new transaction.

Did the same world class legal firm advise Royal that it could use those funds raised for a different purpose without first obtaining approvals from those 98,346,862 new shareholders?

My only comment is that reliance or sitting behind world class legal advise to exonerate directors behavior does not cut the mustard anymore in a court of law.DC