joint ventures, page-71

rob

i had a look at that notice from MMR - it of course revolves around an MoU - in contract law speak, MoUs involve statements of intent, and very typically detail certain 'conditions precedent' that must first be satisfied before those 'intents' are properly formalised into a contractual undertaking that neither party is able to withdraw from - additionally MoUs can also have clear terms that allow either party to withdraw without penalty - at the end of the day it comes down to what the MoU actually says, though generally the key feature is that they are an 'understanding' about what the parties want to see happen between them, but without the legal obligations to make those things happen...

going off the subsequent history of absolutely no further information on the issue, and no court proceedings having been filed, then we could be looking at a case of legal brinkmanship, where the 27 March announcement was simply a ruse to try and get CTP to return to the table to hammer out a proper agreement formailising the intents contained in the legally thread bare MoU...

it's otherwise all speculation on my part at this moment

let's wait and see what response Julian Tambyrajah can provide - if Advent are going no where with this purported claim against CTP, then I'll see if CTP can't motivate an announcement clarifying the position...

good luck