Here’s the kicker - Cassius claim is for future profits, Indianna claim was for compensation of investment funds in ‘actual development costs expended’. Indianna secured third party litigation funding before launching arbitration proceedings, Cassius did not - has not - and will not be able to secure the same. What is interesting is who was paid )as reimbursement) when acquiring the Ghana 2 year licence on promises that renewal was imminent.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
