Md, I agree. Your facts are likely to be correct as they come...

Md,

I agree. Your facts are likely to be correct as they come from the company reports these are the "known knowns", in Donald Rumsfeld speak.
Your suppositions about the possible arrangements around the sale of uranium are very plausible these are the "known unknowns".

What I think is missing here from the company is a statement of clarification about the extent of the sales and marketing rights. We know from the presentation in 2009 that there were negotiations going on between Q and AGS about these rights. One would think that if a binding arrangement had have been concluded over these rights, over and above the original arrangements contained in clause 10.11 of the JV agreement, then this would have been a material fact that shareholders should have been informed about. Maybe the terms of the agreement would have needed to remain confidential, but the existence of the agreement need not. I think the company should give shareholders more clarity about any arrangements that have been entered into regarding the sales and marketing of the uranium and when they entered into these arrangements, if at all. After all, they terminated such arrangements and are now seeking to have this termination validated by the court. If they are relying on wording of the original JV as a basis for their actions in terminating the sales and marketing agreement and taking the court action, I think shareholders have a right to know. If other arrangements have been made since, I think shareholders have a right to know that as well.

Eshmun