reasons for judgment, page-47

strike101

I am just giving an opinion.

imo AGS have to prove that H/Q "intentional" misled to deceive. If they do, its all over.

I dont think they(H/Q) can argue that it was an honest mistake to not inform AGS of the(so far) prospectivity of the tenement at that time.

Can they argue that AGS would have had access to the prospectivity of the tenement by other means.I dont know.

AGS are claiming misleading and deceptive conduct.

I do not know what the terms and conditions of the earn in Contract was, ie what obligations/duty H/Q had in informing AGS of the prospectivity of the Tenement at any time under Law or other?.

Obviously AGS believe that H/Q had a duty to inform and by not doing so, set about to mislead and deceive for their gain.?

If AGS's Case is proven then if some-one(Judge) can put a degree of M&D on it,so be it. Shareholders have to accept whatever comes.

At least we are getting down to the nitty,gritty now!

Md