I think one trigger where AGS realised they had very little control over their 25% was when they had a potential buyer before the legals began and the lack of sales rights became a sticking point. We've never been told who that interested party was but it wouldn't surprise me if it was ITOCHU way back then. It was mention in only one sentence in one of the earlier judgements.
Settlement/purchase options, page-603
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 23 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)