low cash issue, page-15

Lets get real here,oil JV's are much the same as a game of poker,with no refunds if you don't like what the upped anti to stay in is and no returns or rights to return to the game,for a pool you haven't paid your share into it.

No refunds on dud wells drilled and poor operator decisions.
That's called hard/stiff luck as all explorer/mining shareholders know looking at how directors act as their nominal JV operators.SO-You do your due diligence when you buy shares or sign up for JV's.Just like buying a house at auction.

Your still liable for your IOU's and any guarantees to pay you may have entered into.This JV has liabilities that go back to before wharf stopped paying and they relate to then JV partners borrowing terms from Alcoa.
At that point wharf were still party to signing up i understand,so welcome to the real world of risks and liabilities.

yes wharf may have had a cheaper plant option and maybe,it would have been rejected by DMP as not AUS compliant,who knows,IT DOESN"T MATTER once the JV partners take a vote,nor could they object if the JV voted to buy gold plated golf balls with RED GULLY stamped on them as well for the ego MD,for his services to the JV,the majority rules and the minority in all democratic decisions should toe the line.

It was always the deal while EGO had the majority of the JV and only ever would have changed if they sold their interest down.

If calls were made and invoices sent,then that's the reality.If you don't like the bill a smart man pays and writes on the check payment subject to verification of accounts and then once its banked legal notice is served and the onus passes to the banker of the check,him knowing you have just given and he has accepted your legal terms and challenge.A bank copy of the cashed cehque,Saves arguing about that in court as well.That way he can't penalize you for not paying,or claim you have refused to do so,as he is holding the money in his hands.If the CO.secretary as an officer of the company just banks the cheque the company is still accepted it on those terms.
Literally and legally you have him by the balls whatever he does with that cheque.

Wharf didn't do this as far as i am aware and its a simple protection of your rights worth remembering.
Unless of course legal precedences have changed since i did a commercial law course run by a liquidator a few years ago.

DYOR+DYODD Its not a question of whether wharf could pay up,its the fact they apparently chose not to when the money was called.
IMHO DMP party to the case,so they hope see a definitive ruling so stalled JV's can be sorted quickly with JV shares reallocated and so tenement commitments can be met on time in the future,without legal or drilling/development delays.
That's surely their only interest,keeping exploration and development rolling on time,without delays.