Ann: Trading Halt, page-6

I'm am concerned with management's attitude to this litigation. While they expressed confidence in a positive outcome to shareholders, they also indicated that they would continue to pursue legal recourse in the event of a negative outcome. This stance was indicated before any decision was made and therefore without proper regard to the reasoning given in the judgement. In my opinion, this was an unprofessional position to take and it now limits their capacity for reasoned decision making. A detailed reasoning for Senior counsel's opinion to appeal has not been provided.
The decision to mothball the mine in the face of uneconomical pricing for coking coal was justified in May 2016. That is no longer the case. LMCH have every right to expect to receive payment under the terms of the sale agreement. BRL's attempt to indefinitely delay the payment due under the sale agreement by providing a higher royalty payment from the small amount of coal obtained through the preparation process was shallow at best. This clause was put in place to safeguard BRL's ownership of the escarpment as an operating mine until it had the necessary cash from profits to make the payments under the sale agreement.
Special Counsel must give a compelling explanation as to why an appeal is necessary. In the absence of such an explanation, Management would do best by shareholders to consider other options including default if necessary. Unnecessary and likely unsuccessful appeal of the judgement does little to give certainty to investors. IMO