Arbitration Hearing Looming, page-60

Good post, fair points, always nice to have open discussion like this. You raise good point and, again with the caveat I am not a lawyer and using public info only, two points are worth clarifying in response:

(1)The legal test in Rimfire’s earn-in agreement relates to “change of control”, not who funded GPR or who stood behind it financially. The court ruled that control shifted when the improper share issues and board stacking were unwound — that is the trigger Rimfire acted on.

(2)Rimfire didn’t "take Billis’ money". GPR voluntarily funded exploration under a conditional earn-in. The agreement was clear: no milestone completion, no ownership earned. GPR took that risk and unfortunately fell short before its own control structure collapsed.