LOL...I can see every man and his dog will be quacking now...
I suggest people do not lose focus, ignore the "idi0t factor" here on HC and try to look carefully at the facts for themselves.
We need to be smart here people...not all "legal claims" are designed to be won!
In my opinion, there is a separate agenda here...perhaps to help persuade the Minister not to award the tenements to CAZ?
Frankly, I reckon FMG are on drugs if they really think they actually have a case.
But anyway, for the sake of clarity, lets take a closer look at things…
"Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (“Fortescue”) advises that this morning it has commenced an action in the Federal Court of Australia against Cyril Resources Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Cazaly Resources Ltd), Mr Nathan McMahon and Maincoast Pty Ltd (a company associated with Mr McMahon)."
So the defendants are…
1. Cyril Resources (Cazaly subsidiary) - direct impact on CAZ
2. Nathan McMahon (CAZ director) - indirect impact on CAZ
3. Maincoast Pty Ltd - no impact on CAZ
From what I can gather, Maincoast Pty Ltd is an unrelated party to CAZ...the only link being a common director in Nathan McMahon.
Lets continue...
"Fortesque entered into an agreement with Nathan McMahon and Maincoast Pty Ltd..."
As I see it…any "agreement" entered into with Nathan McMahon in his capacity as a director of Maincoast Pty Ltd, has absolutely nothing to do with CAZ...and by extension, nothing to do with the Shovelanna tenement.
Therefore, we can deduct that there is no “pre-emptive rights agreement” existing between FMG and CAZ.
Nathan McMahon and Maincoast Pty Ltd are not CAZ...from what I can gather, it appears CAZ has applied for the permit under the name Cyril Resources, which was registered as a fully owned subsidiary in July 05? (I am still trying to clarify this issue.)
Lets continue…
"The Federal Court action is in specific regard to the Shovelanna tenement and is brought to secure Fortescue’s interests.
In early 2004 Fortescue entered into an agreement with Nathan McMahon and Maincoast Pty Ltd in which Fortescue was granted pre-emptive rights to all iron ore prospective tenement applications made by these entities. Since then there have been iron ore rights provided to Fortescue under the agreement for which remuneration has been paid.
Fortescue contends that the Shovelanna tenement application should have been made with due regard to the agreement and has been negotiating in good faith with Nathan McMahon to determine its rights.
Regrettably these discussions have recently broken down and Fortescue now has no alternative other than to take legal action to protect its position under its agreement."
It appears that FMG are suggesting that because of their previous agreement with Nathan McMahon and his Maincoast group, that he should have lodged the Shovelanna application on FMG’s behalf via the Maincoast group, rather than on CAZ’s behalf…this is ludicrous! If this were to be upheld as an argument, imagine the implications for just about every director in the country who sits on more than one board.
FMG do not own Nathan McMahon…all they have is an agreement with one of his companies…that’s all…and that company has nothing to do with CAZ.
FMG mention they have been “negotiating in good faith with Nathan McMahon to determine its rights”…lol…you may notice they do not mention negotiating directly with CAZ!
At worst, they might be able to go Nathan McMahon for not adhering to their cosy little “gentlemen’s agreement”…but even this would appear to be a very weak case.
Clearly, agreements made with one company…or with individuals in their capacity as director’s of those company’s…cannot possibly be expected to then apply to all other company’s that director may also have relationships with?
I reckon this action is nothing but a desperate attempt to stop CAZ’s MOU with BHP. As we can now deduct, FMG may have been at the negotiating table with CAZ, but it was obviously shown the door due to a better offer from BHP.
Now they are peeved and are having a dummy spit…nothing more than sour grapes if you ask me!
Do FMG really feel they should get the rights to Shovelanna based on the fact that a director of CAZ, in his capacity as a director of another company, has an agreement with them?
lol…clutching at straws I’m afraid.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of FMG's announcement however is this..."Fortescue also categorically denies media speculation that it has acquired shares in Cazaly Resources Ltd."
Perhaps not FMG...but what about Andrew Forrest…perhaps a play on words?…and if not him, then who grabbed the 14%?
Getting very interesting now.
By the way…an interesting link for those interested…notice the word “dead” under the column showing the tenement’s status?
(20min delay)