The tone of the AFR article is suggesting it is from the WSA side of things. So both sides are using the AFR as a mouthpiece on the SID.
The article goes on to say that IGO doesn't believe that the SID is a Takeover as defined in Chapter 6.
Maybe so, by strict definition of C6, but it has the same outcome....the purchase of an asset (WSA). Surely a court would take the view of the outcome of the SID is more important (the final arbiter) of whether a TO is occurring or not. And not be caught up in the fluffy argument that a SID is occurring, and not a TO.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I'm a bush lawyer though.
WSA Price at posting:
$3.58 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held