Ann: Recommended Takeover Offer of Bullseye Mining Limited, page-19

Why are you seeking to overplay the court proceedings? 2 of the court cases are in the District Court of WA. The amount claimed in the DC combined is less than $950,000. Bullseye have a counterclaim on foot in one of the proceedings seeking $429,000 or in part, the equivalent value in shares.

Regarding the proceeding in the Supreme Court, you can read more about the plaintiff's substantive claim and efforts in HONGKONG XINHE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD -v- BULLSEYE MINING LTD [2021] WASC 212. The plaintiff is up to its third amended statement of claim!
On 28 June 2021, Acting Registrar Hosking ordered in part "[72] My preliminary view is that costs should follow the event, and in circumstances where the first defendant has been largely successful in this application, the plaintiff should pay the first defendant's costs of the application." The first defendant being Bullseye Mining Ltd, with the other defendants not appearing on the application. We shall see how the plaintiff goes at any final hearing.

Further you ignore the prospects of the completed 35,000m of RC drilling (to an average depth of 120 metres), which is not included in the 2015 MRE. You suggest the 226koz should be reduced to 79% of this figure due to the plaints.

Surely, the EMR board are better placed to know the true financial position of Bullseye (and their possible future plans for the company given they are not utilising the Sprott acquisition loan money). You make out the directors are paying $115 million for something worth $20 million. Now that might found a cause of action...

I trust the EMR board to deliver for shareholders, let's not forget Morgan Hart owns 39,383,333 shares or 7.64136% of the company;Ross Stanley 35,599,695 shares or 6.90723% of the company, and Sui Lee owns 24,733,333 or 4.79889% of the company (as at 24 Sept. 2021)