de novo #7685864 " ..... if the timeframe for delivering a judgment [on whether AGS could interrogate QH under oath re M&DC litigation] is excessive and unreasonable, the parties to the litigation can raise their concerns with the Chief Judge."
" ... there doesn't have to be a date set ........ for the judgment to be delivered. It can be provided directly to the parties. .........."
" ...... [because of the long delay] the parties can ask the registrar to list the matter for a directions hearing to bring the matter back before the Court. Why don't AGS do this???"
The last sentence above is a very relevant question imo. If the M&D C litigation is important and progressing why has AGS allowed such a long delay?
As de novo suggested, it strongly indicates that the M&D C litigation has been settled in principle. I'd like to think that the poised nature of further progress is providing ags with substantial leverage. At the very least ags might request project management responsibilities for the JV.
Under this adjusted management arrangement the standalone 5mlb/annum plant is a given: 1. its additional costs are recouped within ~12 months 2. AGS' access to improved resource 'discoveries' is secured 3. it somewhat accounts for why this detail is still appearing in prime time presentations, when ostensibly a 3mlb/annum plant is to be utilised with the jv 4. QH's 75% of the jv (71mlbs) may ultimately be a tidy arrangement for AGS
AGS Price at posting:
47.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
