Sorry I should have clarified; I agree that in a legal sense...

First 64 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Bdogg

177 Posts.

2

02/10/14

19:33

Post #: 14067248
Share

Originally posted by cat dog ↑

I would agree on all of those points.

I would say that it is level playing field in the eyes of the law though. When they granted the 2011 injunction the court said that it isn't about weighing up the financial worth of both parties and deciding where the balance of convenience lies. It is about looking at the "wrong" the injunction seeks to prevent. And in this case the injunction seeks to prevent AVQ from mining land which they may not be entitled to. If AVQ had been allowed to mine the land over the last few years and SMM ended up winning imagine what sort of a shit storm that would cause. If they went under then that would be an unfortunate result of the way the law works.

If the injunction is lifted next week that is a pretty big indicator of the outcome of the whole thing. It basically shows that the Court of Appeal agree that AVQ are entitled to mine the land.

I especially agree on the buying at these prices too. It may go a lot lower if the injunction isn't lifted next week though. But to me that doesn't mean all that much and I would happily continue buying. Blue skies in a few months IMO Patience will be rewarded IMO DYOR

Expand

Sorry I should have clarified;

I agree that in a legal sense it's an equal footing, however in terms of capability to exert those equal rights it is somewhat in SMMS favour. The court could take this into consideration next week and in the event that the injunction is granted, the 'damages bill' may be upped.

I think someone with contacts in SI suggested that the hearing is Tuesday morning SI time.

AVQ Price at posting: 1.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply