Update from 26/05 AM. I was there for a little under an hour from the 10:15 start until just after 11. No notes taken today since I was warned by another poster that it's against the rules. However I think I can remember most of it (I made myself a voice note straight after leaving). Note that I'll use quotations marks for clarity here and there, but this is all from memory.
IG on the stand being questioned by Q counsel the whole time. This was a continuation from yesterday apparently. I've gotta say, I was pretty impressed by IG. Cool, calm and collected would be my description. A thoughtful pause before answering every question. Clear, confident answers. Didn't get drawn into looking awkward or evasive on anything. And I thought, purposefully or otherwise, made Mr Meyer look flustered on the odd occasion (only ever so slightly, but he's a pretty intimidating figure, so that's a good effort).
First some questions regarding the timing of IG's association with AGS.
Did you read the Four Mile JV agreement when you first bought into AGS (2003)? IG - No
Maldon was your main interest? IG - Correct
When did you first read the JV agreement? IG - when David Brunt contacted us to apply for an extension (2003-2004).
Then Q counsel went over some of the terms, e.g. that a relatively small amount of money needed to be spent to get the 75% ($450k?), that AGS was free carried until decision to mine, that decision was made in 2008, that Q had spent $42 million by that time etc.
This then set the stage for his next line of questions. Starting with something along the lines of "You said yesterday that you believe there is a conspiracy by Q to defraud AGS, does this sound like the actions of a company trying to defraud?" IG - Yes. This was asked in a couple of different ways to which IG stayed very cool and repeated that yes, he believes there was/is a conspiracy to defraud AGS.
Has AGS benefited from the production and sales expertise of Q? IG - No. We have benefited from their production expertise, but not from their sales expertise. [Nice one Mr G!]
Then something like, "Are you aware that a significant amount of money would be paid to AGS in the dilution scenario, with no further outlays?" IG - that's not correct. We may never see any money from FM. [this is somewhat of a scary line to me, as a shareholder, but really hits home his belief in the 'conspiracy to defraud line'. There was no clarification, or request for clarification, concerning this statement].
Are you aware that sales have taken place, in April, and that they are at prices significantly above the prevailing spot price in the second half of 2014? IG - Yes.
Isn't this a benefit to AGS? IG - No.
Do you still say there's a conspiracy to defraud? IG - Yes.
Isn't it right that Q has informed AGS that operating costs are 15% lower than anticipated and that FM will be cash flow positive this year. IG - Yes. [!!!] And does this still sound like a conspiracy to defraud? IG - Yes [gotta love his confidence - but wish I knew AGS's arguments...]
Then the line of questioning jumped to Itochu - and apparently Q have not seen this agreement! Questions about what the agreement entailed, the price Itochu would pay, the time frame, how much it would have cost them. Quite frankly, I think many of the posters on here know the details better than either Q counsel or IG. Nevertheless, the line of questioning seemed to be aiming towards the fact that the Itochu agreement would have resulted in a dilution of AGS. Interestingly, something was said about how the agreement was with AGS, not ACE, and as such this bypassed Q's preemptive rights.
Interesting stuff, and that was only the first hour of today!
Expand
