I commend your attempts at a rational interaction, but I fear it's quite lost on that member. He has an exceptionally long history of inventing stuff to suit his own narrative (hopes/desires) and then attempting to beat readers into submission by sheer weight of ad nauseam copy/paste repetition.
Back on-topic: You have read correctly, imo. The agreement never made it past the HoA stage. The open question for a court to consider might be whether POS can prove that MIN did not use all reasonable endeavours to complete legal DD to the reasonable satisfaction of the Purchaser (per the CP language contained on pp.3-4 of POS' announcement of 18/03/24). A rather tough ask, I would imagine, for two reasons, being: 1) Successfully meeting the the legal hurdles required to prevail in a civil action (i.e. in court); and 2) Having the financial resources and patience (time) available to effectively be able to bring an action in the first place. I think 1) is going to be a tough enough thing to succeed on, but the lack of financial resources and, by extension, the luxury of time available to POS makes any civil contest an impractical non-starter, imo. POS had previously indicated, in an update announcement prior to the termination notice being served, that MIN had indicated it was prepared to renegotiate completion of the deal on materially lesser terms, which the POS Board was unwilling to accept. So, apparently not terminal at that point in time, but we'll never really know whether that was just bluster from the POS Board. Whether MIN is still prepared to renegotiate or whether the POS Board is prepared to soften its position remains to be seen. One thing that appears certain is that POS is not operating from a position of strength.
Meanwhile, good ol' TB is tilting at windmills... HARD, as usual.
(20min delay)