I had a look at the prospectus, and the solicitors report, while...

I had a look at the prospectus, and the solicitors report, while it did not state that all tenements were in good standing, did state that in October 2017 3 of the ML's in the group did not have their Form 5 expenditure reports submitted as at the time of the Prospectus. 

This is not, generally speaking, grounds for forfeiture by itself. Plus, even the fact there was an Independent Geologists Report, Solicitors Report and Auditors Report for the tenement package, and all costs associated with listing the tenements, does in fact count as expenditure on the tenements, at least as far as I am aware, in that money was expended across all tenements (in proportions) and therefore the 3 tenements in question would have had expenditures on them by this mechanism. 

Subsequently, of course, the company has begun drilling, so...I really doubt there is a leg to stand on. 

I do wonder what the connection is between the Chinese concern which has rights on the laterites, and the Chinese gentleman behind the plaint. It's not too far beyond the realms of possibility that a potential weakness in the expenditure reporting protocols was discovered by the firm, and some sneaky mates rates plaint was launched on the basis of this information.