legal proceedings update, page-8

This is only my opinion, however why would ACE put there name to a NTMA, effectively saying Quasar are rightfully entitled to interest in the lease, then pursue the misleading and deceptive conduct matter, thereby contending that Quasar is not rightfully entitled to interest in the lease.

They are inconsistent with each other. My reasoning is that you cannot be on a NTMA if you don't have a rightful interest in the lease underpinning the NTMA.

I'm not saying the misleading and deceptive conduct case cannot proceed, I'm just saying that by voluntarily allowing a new NTMA to be submitted with Quasar, it weakens ACE's case to recover the 75% interest from Quasar.

I hope that makes sense...