Accounts don't lie, page-83

The problem I have atm real or imagined is how I got to this point as a Shareholder in AGS.

Somethings not quite right here imo

Around four years ago AGS or Ian Gandel initiated legal proceedings to get the return of the 75% back from H/Q claiming they were misled into the signing of the J/V.imo The timing of same coincided with a Capital raise for Mining and Production. imo

Obviously the Legal Team engaged would have had to decide the merit of the case and whether there could be evidence to negate the Claim.?

That's assuming they were told everything? imo

Four years down the track Evidence is miraculously produced four Days BEFORE AGS and H/Q go head to head in Court?

Why wasn't the evidence presented earlier?

Why didn't the Legal team have the nous to question I.Gandel and/or AGS Directors of the possibilities of this or any evidence being possible(real) and produced.

Again what were they(Legal Team) told?

More questions
Did one Director have total control of the M&D C Matter?
Did any one of the Directors know of the possibility of the evidence supporting H/Q could be produced?
Were the legal team informed of the possibility?
Did the Legal team advise or were they advised and by who from AGS's director/s?

Going on what I was told at AGMs, Presentations etc and what eventuated with the M&D C Matter it beggars belief that the Case would end as it did! imo

The Legal Team and/or the Directors would know why this ended like this.
And it appears they will not reveal the reasons atm imo


Md