proposed sale of a world-class asset..., page-72

As I see it there is absolutely no reason that AGS can not continue the court action even if they sell the 25%. Compare the situation if you buy a car from a dealer and the condition of the vehicle has been misrepresented. You can sue the dealer whether or not you retain the car. The most likely remedy available will be damages, but perhaps this was always the most likely remedy available to AGS.

I wonder how AGS can simply unilaterally withdraw from the court case. In such a situation could Heathgate not sue for costs?

On the other side of the coin Heathgate can only stop court action by reaching an agreement with AGS? And that would occur if H/G was the buyer of the 25%.

There is more to this story than meets the eye -the difficulty is trying to piece together that story.

What is clear is that Gandel's ALK needs a bundle of money. There has been talk of Gandel folding his mining interests together. Would a placement to a cash rich AGS be helpful for ALK?