Settlement/purchase options, page-576

"JD took the stand. Also questioned by Meyer (I hope I've got that right). Was asked about whether he'd seen Dragoman contract - no. Asked about the Gandel metals service agreement and what it entailed. Answer about office use, shared staff, overheads, software etc. This line of questioning also didn't seem to get anywhere. July board meeting minutes refer to "track 1 litigation finalised" - asked what track 1 means (by judge). Said it referred to the attempt to regain the 75%. Then along line of questioning about the decision to sell, and where and when the decision was made. It got a bit complicated, but I think the gist is that the decision was made (or contemplated) at a meeting of the legal subcomittee in the offices of the Dragoman, with all board members in attendance, as was John Fast and Mr Heathcote (?). JD said the actual decision was made via a circular resonlution, while Meyer was suggesting that it was taken at the meeting at Dragoman [my thoughts - it seemed clear that the decision was made at the meeting, which was 13th June 2014 btw]. There seemed to be issues with regards to whether it should have been board meeting. Meyer also asked about who's idea it was, to which JD initially said he didn't recall, but ended up saying John Fast. Questioned asked about what potential buyers were discussed, and JD said HG and Itochu. Was it discussed that people wanting uranium themselves might be buyers? JD - I don't recall. Was there discussion about needing sales rights - JD I don't recall. Would this have influenced buyers - JD I don't recall [this part looked a little evasive]. Then some questions about an information memorandum prepared by Deloittes about the sale. Meyer asking about board input and approval of the document. JD came across as very reasonable saying that Deloitte was handling the process and it wasn't something the board need to manange (my paraphrasing of course).'
...............................................................
Notes from Damo above

From my position in AGS
Ian Gandel is running the show and if he says sell then its sell but JD has stated in court that Dragoman was behind the latest decision to sell. imo

The Directors went to great lengths to break the hold that the BBros have over them judging by payment to June 14 of 1m plus for the services of Dragoman. Can some one tell me when they were first engaged?

Interestingly from other notes from our posters, notice how the H/Q Lawyers stated on a number of occasions that the Reduction deal was good for AGS.

That's what I reported from the AGM that JD said and I quote again "do the sums" its a good deal.
That's what we have if there is no change in court. imo

Sales rights and the reduction process, null and void is a great result for us. (25%)

I don't believe only getting Sales Right will allow a Sale or be attractive enough for an outside buyer.
If the December 15 Cash Call is not met then 15% reduces down to 11% in the following year. Six months to seal a deal!

We had 25% and 45m when the Court Action was started and from a post put on here but removed 78m has been raised to date for AGS.imo

Like I have posted everyone gets found out in the end and at least with the Court process we can determine positives and negatives with our Director's actions. (Sludge says judgement day is coming) Correct.!

The Market wants certainty, I want certainty as all shareholders do.

Want lies ahead for us? Certainty?

I always err on the side of caution.

Md