Previous financial accounts have stated that CTR had satified...

Previous financial accounts have stated that CTR had satified the LAR funding obligations under the earn-in agreement to get the 60%, this has been the case for quite some time. Surely until we formally hear otherwise we shouldn't assume any different?.. Then bring out the pitchforks and torches.
The was an option to increase to 70%, I cannot recall what was required, maybe it is this in dispute??

IMO I think Bretts comment about the mess already being in the public domain is regarding the Texas transaction tied up with LIND and RRS ongoing negotiations. But they way this info has been conveyed is unprofessional and completely agree with BK's comment above. I have emailed both CTR and Brett, without response.