I also found the relevant text in court documents which summarises the issue from QLD court. Seems pretty clear cut to me?
"Geoscience claims that it is entitled to commission, by way of a success fee, for introducing Total to Central, on the basis of a further agreement it contends was made with Central on 26 February 2012 (the 2012 agreement). Central denies that it entered into the 2012 agreement. There is a factual dispute as to whether an employee of Central, Mr Trevor Shortt, signed the 2012 agreement. Mr Shortt says he did not. The representative of Geoscience, Mr Niraj Pande, and his assistant, Mr William McGinnis, says he did. No signed copy of the alleged agreement has been produced. Central says, even if it be found that Mr Shortt did sign the agreement, which he denies, he did not have actual or ostensible authority to bind Central to the 2012 agreement. Central also relies upon the 2011 agreement, which provided that Central had no liability to pay any commission to Geoscience (cl 12) and under which Geoscience released and discharged Central in relation to any claim that Geoscience may make for payment of a commission (cl 26)."
Looks like CTP has gone to QLD court to seek relief that texan courts don't have jurisiction over CTP activities (which is fair enough to me?). GRR sound like they're relying on the lenience of local texan courts, which often seem to favour local companies in awarding damages (refer the number of IP and patent cases from patent trolls that are exercised through these courts).
CTP Price at posting:
8.6¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)