I've heard this theory thrown around a bit, but it just isn't sound legally from what I know of my time spent in that world. If MZN was not aware of this "deal" for months and months until lawyers alerted them to it, then there it is unlikely a judge would rule they have a binding agreement. Intent and various other aspects (timing etc) are important considerations in these grey cases. Being alerted to a potential agreement by a third party, months later doesn't very well prove intent at the time of the discussions in April (and the burden of proof is on MZN). And, we know that discussions ended in April and were not ongoing such as MZN trying to get KDR to come good on their "agreement" behind the scenes (KDR announcement to that fact and as it is very easy to prove, I have confidence they were not lying on an official announcement).
Reasonable time is also very important. A binding agreement (or intent to form one) usually has a specified time frame, otherwise what is "reasonable" becomes the measure. I have never seen 6-7 months be considered "reasonable" unless it was explicitly stated that the time frame was open ended, which seems highly unlikely and would show a shocking lack of commercial acumen by KDR (especially considering they say they never intended to form an agreement with MZN and announcements seem to back this up re noting interest but saying they wanted to conduct their own due diligence).
End of the day, none of us will truly know until the case is heard. For MZN to pursue it this far, they must thing they have a case so I am not that cocky to think this is a joke. But, on what is known that argument of MZN being alerted to this deal by lawyers at a later date, seems far fetched. Overall, I wouldn't buy either company until this is sorted (am happy to continue to hold a small parcel of KDR bought well before this mess though as their side seems more likely to come out ahead).
MZN Price at posting:
2.7¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
