unless challenged in a court of law, we will never know the truth
fact is, under alternative transactions, the T/O certainly meets the 'criteria' yet in OZL version of the contingent payment deed, there are allegedly exclusions that are not published in the version of the contingent payment deed provided by CPN
fact is, in this case, CPN and OZL should have allegedly made it clear to the market, way way way before I was even speculating about it, by definatively ruling out, the triggering of the contingent payment deed
as a non holder I am surprised you have such an interest, maybe it's that massive chip on your shoulder about trying to prove me wrong
if I took the matter to court with unlimited funds and a decent couple of lawyers, I bet you I could make CPN $20M.. or alternatively I could start class action regarding disclosure obligations of directors, for allegedly both CPN and OZL
the reality is, that no one had the balls, the funds, or the 'F### you' attitude that characterises real tigers in the exploration game
keep wasting your valuable energy posting on stocks you don't own
Expand
