Ann: Potential Dispute Relating to Eureka Gold Project, page-5

I have tried to ring the company this morning but each time there is a busy signal. I want to know what is different in the signed agreement compared to the ASX announcement. I suspect it will be in the wording of how many shares CIO are entitled to at the time of settlement.

By this I mean, does the agreement state CIO are entitled to 14.4% of TYX, which equated to about 93m shares at the time of signing, or does it specify an amount of 93m shares in total.

If CIO are entitled to 14.4% of TYX at the time of settlement, then they will get a lot more shares now as TYX has undertaken a cap raising recently.

Another potential issue looms for TYX here also. We need to issue a heap of shares to settle the acquisition of Goodsprings. If CIO wants 14.4% of an expanded TYX then they will end up with nearly double the amount of shares stated in the ASX announcement last December.

If the dispute drags on then the Goodsprings deal may be in jeopady along with Eureka.

I suspect the original purchase document will state 14.4%, not an actual share amount as in the ASX announcement, hence TYX's claim that the Eureka Sale document doesn't accurately record the terms of the agreement.

TYX may have meant the document to be in reference only the the current shares on issue at the time of signing, which worked out at around 93m, but if it says 14.4% at time of settlement then TYX will most probably have to issue enough shares to cover the shortfall.

It sounds like CIO has TYX over a barrel. If the company fights the interpretation of a written and signed sale agreement document, then that may put the Goodchild cobalt project at risk.

If TYX issues 141m shares for Goodchild then our SOI will be 855m, or 300m more than when the Eureka sale was announced. CIO will want 14.4% of TYX based on this amount of shares.

I am hoping TYX can clarify the above when I get hold of someone.