facing the music, page-24

"I can't see how HG can make an argument about what ACE would/might have done had the directors known all that they knew at the time the request was made."

I think it is a fair defence, they are facing a case of being misleading and deceptive, if not telling Alliance about prospectivity didnt effect what AGS did then it is technical. Of course they are not 100% correct but the goal is avoiding losing 100%. If the judge looks at both sides and AGs says no we wouldnt renew had we known what the exploration had uncovered to date and then HG demonstrates the indications were not conclusive but may be 10s of millions of lb. The judge then says to AGS what would you then have done instead of renewing. What does AGS say?, they are going to sit on it?, find another JV partner?, develop it themselves?. Then the judge asks what would you have accepted from HG to extend the lease knowing its prospectivity? That is the question, it is improbable the answer would be 100% There are other issues and also probably a penalty. But in my view that is the best realistic out come.