Great comments.   Sounds like COB and BPL both agree that a lot...

Great comments.   Sounds like COB and BPL both agree that a lot more work - as specified by the Wood PLC report they commissioned - needs to be done. As they say they both want the project to proceed which means Cobalt sulfate, not ore concentrate. The 70% milestone was formally accepted so that is ancient history, no point harping on about deficiencies of PFS. Why wouldn't BPL let COB have more time to carry this work out (if that narrative is accurate) - at COB cost - as per earn-in agreement? Was BPL after too high a price in one way or another? Was BPL hoping for some cash to avoid a CR ? Cant for the life of me understand how not allowing the work to happen - or asking too high a price with same result - is in the interests of BPL shareholders? And if it was a dispute about in which order to do the necessary work specified by Wood PLC to prove up the metallurgy and complete BFS, why wouldn't Wood PLC have been asked to indicate the order of work? Sounds a simple enough deal. And if the agreement is actually over why wouldn't voting be by majority? From the tone of COB announcement on 22nd,  a judge may well be ruling on this (and damages?) soon enough. Judging by SP action the market today seems to be thinking  COB will win.