I then asked basis precedent and available public information,...

I then asked basis precedent and available public information, what side would you choose:

If I had to pick based on the public information and legal positioning:

Rimfire appears to have the stronger hand

• Why?

  • They contracted for a clear termination right in the event of a change of control, and that event has occurred through a court judgment, not just Rimfire’s subjective declaration.

  • GPR had not yet earned any project interest, limiting its leverage to reimbursement claims rather than ownership clawback.

  • Rimfire has acted procedurally cautious—taking legal advice, offering to consolidate disputes, and maintaining public professionalism.

• Risk Exposure?

  • The biggest risk is protracted legal costs or reputational drag, not necessarily losing the arbitration itself.

  • There is always a small risk the tribunal might side with GPR on equitable grounds (sunk costs, fairness) or find procedural faults in how Rimfire executed the termination.

  • 
    

Why Not GPR?

• GPR is coming from a weakened position—a court has already ruled against its management for oppressive conduct.

• It failed to complete earn-in milestones.

• It risks looking like it’s trying to salvage a lost position via pressure tactics or public sentiment campaigns.

So, purely from a legal, reputational, and strategic risk perspective, I would rather be in Rimfire’s position—assuming they stay disciplined and avoid being baited into escalation outside formal channels.


So, isnt that interesting - "It risks looking like it’s trying to salvage a lost position via pressure tactics or public sentiment campaigns". Does that sounds familiar gents?