Hardrock,
I think your comments are the most logical from the pro Rio case however the FACT is that Caz already are the legal owners of the new lease and thus the tenement. The previous lease no longer exists. How can, therefore, Rio have a "right" to a lease that doesn't exist and a tenement that is now covered by a lease that Caz already own?
Rio know this. That is why there only chance is through the "Public Interest" route. Had Caz not secured the investment, technical support and BHP support then Rio would have won on the Public Interest arguement. However, Caz have been good enough in a very short space of time to defeat that arguement. Rio have been outplayed. Good on Caz.
inaction arguement., page-13
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 53 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add CAZ (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
1.9¢ |
Change
-0.001(5.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $8.764M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 1.9¢ | 1.9¢ | 1.9¢ | $2.552K | 134.3K |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 139578 | 1.9¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0¢ | 425001 | 1 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 14.58pm 12/07/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| CAZ (ASX) Chart |