legal proceedings update, page-261

SC.
"Why should there be confidentiality restrictions."
This is a good question and I like you (et al) can only speculate the 'why'. De Novo has given us some good reasons.

IMO the market has not fully appreciated that a deed of settlement (NTMA litigation) was executed by the parties on 4 December 2011 and the matter was adjourned so the parties can satisfy agreed conditions in accordance with that settlement. We know this includes the registration of a third and presumably final NTMA.
The terms of the settlement are otherwise confidential and I presume this includes an agreed settlement of the declarations sought by AGS, particulary that Quasar exceeded and breached its authority and its contractual obligation of good faith in signing a native title mining agreement (the 1st NTMA).

I can appreciate how this settlement might have been reached without reference (or linkage) to the M&DC litigation and if the terms of settlement regarding the above declaration are confidential, I suspect sharholders are not overly compromised by this (imo).