I posted this in the other thread relating to GPR's desperate...

I posted this in the other thread relating to GPR's desperate attempt (through sponsoring propaganda in a small news paper) to retain their stake in this gem, but thought it warranted its own thread as there seems to be a fair bit of uncertainty over what is happening with the legal stuff. This could very well be incredibly BULLISH for RIM, as if their case is as good as they claim then they should easily gain full ownership of the mines (rather than partial ownership), and will likely even keep the funds for themselves. On 16 October the court will decide whether to grant GPR an injunction order, which IMO will be denied. This will be a major catalyst for a rerate, as it will signal the strength of RIM's case and will allow RIM to continue to move forward as if GPR no longer exist. In my view, the market has already priced this company as if GPR's injunction and case is set in stone, which it clearly isn't.

Here is what to expect on October 16 though:

Key Aspects of a Substantive Hearing:

1. Review of Evidence:

   • The court will review the evidence presented by both parties. GPR will present evidence supporting its argument that the termination of the earn-in agreement was invalid and that an interlocutory injunction is necessary to prevent harm. Rimfire, on the other hand, will present its evidence supporting the validity of the termination and argue that an injunction is not warranted.
   • Both documentary evidence and witness testimony (if necessary) will be considered to assess the claims.

2. Legal Arguments:

   • Lawyers for both sides will make detailed legal arguments. GPR's legal team will likely argue that there is a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of the termination and that the injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. They will seek to convince the court that without the injunction, their interests in the Fifield Project could be permanently damaged.
   • Rimfire’s lawyers will argue against the necessity of the injunction, likely pointing out that GPR has no legal basis to claim harm and that the termination was conducted within the rights outlined in the agreement. Rimfire may also argue that GPR can be adequately compensated with damages if the termination is found to be invalid, meaning an injunction is unnecessary.

3. Assessment of the Criteria for Injunction:

   • The court will assess whether GPR has demonstrated the key criteria necessary for an injunction:
     • Serious Question to be Tried: Is there a legitimate legal question that needs to be resolved?
     • Balance of Convenience: Does the balance of potential harm weigh in favor of GPR, or would the injunction cause undue harm to Rimfire?
     • Irreparable Harm: Would GPR suffer harm that could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages if the injunction is not granted?
     • Preservation of the Status Quo: Should the status quo be maintained until the final resolution of the dispute?

4. Judge’s Decision:

   • After hearing the evidence and arguments, the judge will make a decision on whether to grant or deny the interlocutory injunction.
   • If the injunction is granted, Rimfire will be legally prohibited from acting on its termination of the Fifield Project Earn-In Agreement until the underlying legal dispute is resolved in full, either through a settlement or a final court ruling. This could delay Rimfire's operations at the Fifield Project significantly.
   • If the injunction is denied, Rimfire will be free to proceed with its plans for the Fifield Project, including seeking new partners or advancing the project independently, while the broader legal dispute with GPR continues.

5. Timetable for Further Proceedings:

   • Depending on the outcome, the court may set a timetable for further legal proceedings, including the trial to resolve the main dispute over the validity of the termination. The injunction hearing itself is not meant to resolve the full legal dispute but rather to determine whether interim protections are necessary while the main case is decided.

Possible Outcomes of the Substantive Hearing:

• Injunction Granted: If the court grants the injunction, Rimfire will be prevented from taking further actions on the Fifield Project until the legal dispute with GPR is resolved. This could cause delays in exploration and project advancement, and Rimfire would need to wait for a final resolution before moving forward.
• Injunction Denied: If the injunction is denied, Rimfire would be able to proceed with its plans, including exploration and potential new funding or partnerships for the project. However, the broader legal dispute with GPR would still need to be resolved.

Conclusion:

The substantive hearing is a critical step in determining whether Rimfire can continue its activities at the Fifield Project while the dispute with GPR is being resolved. The outcome will hinge on the court's interpretation of the evidence and legal arguments, particularly regarding the balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable harm to GPR.

Criteria for Granting an Interlocutory Injunction:

1. Serious Question to be Tried:

   • The court must first determine whether there is a serious issue to be tried in the underlying legal dispute. In this case, GPR is challenging the validity of Rimfire's termination notice. Given that GPR disputes the termination, asserting that it was invalid, and the matter relates to significant contractual rights and obligations, the court may find that there is a serious question to be tried.

2. Balance of Convenience:

   • This criterion involves weighing the potential harm to both parties. GPR would need to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, which may be difficult or impossible to compensate for with monetary damages. If GPR can show that continuing exploration or changes to the Fifield Project by Rimfire would cause significant or irreversible damage to its interests, this could sway the balance of convenience in favor of granting the injunction.
   • On the other hand, Rimfire could argue that halting their operations due to the injunction would severely impact their ability to advance the Fifield Project and secure new funding, which could tilt the balance of convenience in their favor.

3. Irreparable Harm:

   • GPR must prove that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. "Irreparable" in this context means harm that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary compensation. If GPR's interest in the project or its ability to recover from a termination is at risk of being permanently affected, this would be a key argument for obtaining an injunction.
   • Conversely, Rimfire may argue that no irreparable harm would occur since any damages suffered by GPR could potentially be resolved through financial compensation if the termination is later found to be invalid.

4. Preserving the Status Quo:

   • Courts often aim to preserve the status quo until the dispute can be fully resolved at trial. In this case, preserving the status quo would mean maintaining the terms of the original earn-in agreement until a final decision is reached on the termination. Rimfire has already undertaken not to act on the termination notice until the substantive hearing scheduled for October 16, 2024. This interim agreement helps preserve the status quo, which may reduce the urgency for the court to impose further restrictions.

Likelihood of Success:

• For GPR: If GPR successfully argues that there is a serious question to be tried and that it would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, it may have a strong case for obtaining an interlocutory injunction. The court will also consider whether the balance of convenience favors maintaining the agreement while the legal dispute is resolved.

• For Rimfire: If Rimfire can demonstrate that halting its operations would significantly harm the company and that any harm GPR might suffer could be adequately compensated with monetary damages, the court may decide against granting the injunction. The fact that Rimfire has already agreed to preserve the status quo until the October 16 hearing may also influence the court's decision by reducing the immediate need for an injunction.

Conclusion:

It is difficult to predict the court's ruling with certainty, but GPR's success in obtaining an injunction will depend on whether it can meet the legal thresholds discussed above, particularly proving irreparable harm and showing that the balance of convenience lies in its favor. Rimfire's existing agreement to pause actions related to the termination until the substantive hearing may work against the need for an immediate injunction, as the status quo is already being preserved temporarily. The outcome will ultimately depend on the specific arguments presented during the hearing

If RIM is successful and the injunction is denied on 16 October = HIGHLY BULLISH

1. Clear Path for Project Development:

• Denying the injunction would allow Rimfire to proceed with its plans for the Fifield Project without further delays. This would provide investors with more certainty about the company's ability to advance its exploration activities, particularly around the Murga North scandium resource, which is considered one of the key assets of the company. Clear progress on project development typically boosts investor confidence, which could positively influence the share price.

2. Reduced Legal Uncertainty:

• If the court denies the injunction, it signals that Rimfire’s termination of the agreement with GPR was strong enough to withstand legal challenge at this stage. While the broader legal dispute might continue, denying the injunction would suggest that Rimfire is in a better legal position, reducing the overall uncertainty around the company's future. Investors tend to react positively when legal risks diminish, as uncertainty often drives stock prices down.

3. Boost to Investor Confidence:

• The market may perceive the denial of the injunction as a validation of Rimfire's management decisions and the strength of their legal strategy. This could enhance investor confidence in the company’s leadership, further supporting a potential rebound in the share price.

4. Potential for New Partnerships or Funding:

• With the injunction denied, Rimfire would be free to seek new partners, funding, or joint ventures for the Fifield Project without being hindered by legal constraints. This flexibility could open the door to new strategic opportunities, which investors might view as a positive development, potentially driving the share price higher.

5. Operational Continuity:

• The denial of the injunction would allow Rimfire to continue its operations without the threat of immediate legal disruption. This operational continuity is important for maintaining momentum in exploration and development, which are crucial to long-term value creation and share price performance.

Conclusion:

If the court denies GPR’s request for an injunction, it would likely be seen as a positive outcome for Rimfire Pacific Mining, leading to an improvement in the share price. The resolution of immediate legal risks, combined with the ability to advance the Fifield Project unimpeded, could lead to a more favorable outlook for the company in the eyes of investors

I will let others come up with their judgements themselves, but it seems pretty clear that the probability of success leans substantially in RIMs favour. Not only do they have all the evidence in their favour (eg a contract that clearly states a change in control clause and no repayment obligations), but an injunction would likely severely and permanently harm RIM, whereas it would have no impact on GPR that could not be resolved with a financial payout. As such, it is highly likely that the injunction will be denied by the court, and RIM will be successful. Therefore, I am expecting October 16 to be a substantial catalyst for a rerate, hence why I entered this stock yesterday. The market is pricing this as if RIM has already lost, when it is actually quite likely that they will not only win, but will significantly benefit, resulting in a rerate not just back to the prior highs, but much higher.



This is just the legal drama though, what I am really excited about is the huge resource this company has and the very compelling results so far. The prospect of this company having full ownership of the mines now as a result of these legal proceedings is even more exciting