Ann: Claim against BRL, page-85

5 hours of summary by BRL's lawyer today. (he must have sore feet from standing that long)
Never thought I would have to listen to one persons view of the word "shipping" for over an hour and a half.
3 points to note
Prior to court today my understanding was BRL had not actually sold 25000 tonnes that would trigger the $40m USD payment. I thought they had only sold a few tonnes and moved the rest down to the wash plant. The fact is BRL have mined, sold and transported more than 25 000 tonnes which was supplied to Holcium cement plant prior to it closing.
Secondly I did not realize, until court today, that the CEO/MD of Bathurst in 2010, when the agreement was signed, is a witness for L & M mining and supports their point of view.
Thirdly anyone who thinks this is a sure win for BRL has no idea what they are talking about.

BRL's defense appears to be

1. BRL are trying to defend their position on the definition of the word shipping.
2. As a back up they are saying that it was not coking coal that was removed and sold but thermal coal only.
3. They are defending their position on the price of coal and the proposition of the business deal as a whole.

My prospective and others present in court today is BRL may not have a leg to stand on when it comes to point 2 and 3 as after what I heard today I don't think either are mentioned or well defined in the agreement. A long session has heard on both points and I am yet to work out the relevance of either.
However after listening to the BRL's lawyers point of view, for 1.5 hours, on the definition of the word shipping I thought he had some really good points.......that's until the judge started to directly question him about the evidence obtained from the representatives from BRL who negotiated the deal back in 2010.
As it turns out that evidence contradicts BRL current beliefs.......that is BRL's current management seem to believe the word shipping was put in the contract as industry pacific to mean "shipping of export coal only"
Indeed the CEO/MD of BRL,at the time the deal was signed, is a witness on behalf of L & M mining and supports L & M's view and understanding of the contract that the word shipping was more a generic term and no such industry pacifics were ever discussed or agreed to. This was also supported by BRL's other negotiator at the time who is still a director.
To cut a very long story short I thought BRL's case was a little thin on the ground and seems to rely heavily on their interpretations of points one could argue were not that directly related to the contract but I am no expert and they may have some bearing
I can't make tomorrow's L & M closing statements.
I will say a number of emails were referred to today and defended but not in any real detail...... I am of the opinion that more than likely they will favour L & M and will be raised in a lot more detail by L & M layers in closing tomorrow.
This is just my opinion and in no way should be deemed investment advice
Please do your own research.
Best wishes to all the investors who are happy to hear from both the bears and bulls.
All information in this post was sourced from today's, open to the public, court hearing and is all in my humble opinion.
This post may include spelling and grammar mistakes.....but sheet happens