The CoA's judgement was based on a technicality. Not once did...

The CoA's judgement was based on a technicality. Not once did any court say AVQ acted deceitfully. Can't say the same about SMM. AVQ's efforts of decent, honest business was hampered by SMM, who have now decided to walk. Why couldn't they have walked 18 months ago before deciding to appeal the HC decision? The nickel price was the same as it now. So if their reason for leaving now was a depressed nickel market and SI being too difficult to do business in, what do you call a 5 year legal battle? Pretty sure that's a sign of a difficult place to do business in. They only figure this stuff out now? The truth is they know they were never wanted but they tried to do what big companies do best - and this time didn't work, because RM didn't go anywhere. They played every card they had, and AVQ stood firm. So yeah, again, I blame them for taking AVQ and its shareholders through an expensive and extensive legal battle. I would have respected them more if they stayed until the end