facing the music

I dont know whats going to happen, I am here fishing for some leads.
It seems to me the likely hood of an offer from Heathgate & co is dependant on the strenght of there case. I have mentioned this here and no one has denied it. The Heathgate lawyers have in my opinion indicated that AGS wasnt keep up to date on prospectivity. They say the relationship between the 2 parties didnt involve a duty to inform. That suprises me but I assume there is some truth in it or why present it in court. The other defense I have heard is it is technical. I assume they mean if AGS had know the exploration data they wouldnt have done anything significantly different and would have renewed the lease JV. By my rough calculations uranium was about Aus $15/lb in 2004 spot. How much would the data indicate the resource was? 10 years later its 70-100mlb In 2004 how many uranium miners proficient in ISR would have been interested in doing a deal and on what terms. Then there is the claim IG said had he known about the resource he wouldnt have shared it with Heathgate. Some how I dont think that would go down well with the judge. It could well be he is legally intitled to it but the judge is thinking about the ethics what is good for Australia, business etc...He has to be seen to be giving justice. Heathgate would earn a share in any discovery if they spent so much on exploration over a set time.

I am getting the opinion there isnt much of a case over prospectivity. Prehaps if there had been some fraud in the information they gave AGS or if they are wrong about duty and the options Alliance had. I cant see what problem Mr Blue would have on the stand if they have already indicated they werent providing information. There are other aspects to the case I assume, the toll rate may be.
Hit me.