It seems to me on the basis of information provided by UML to the market (and discussion on HotCopper) that LionGold stuffed UML around at the very least (and some have suggested that LionGold did not comply which their contractual requirements to pay for new shares) when UML and UML sp was vulnerable.
If that is so, it would seem that UML may have a valid claim to damages.
Current (and future higher shareprice) of UML is irrelevant to the issue.
As a shareholder I would be wanting my board to defend its interests and pursue its entitlements (should the board consider it an effective use of time and money).
I would want them to take a commercial approach.
As a principle, I do not advocate vengeance, and it is never never a valid cause for action.
However, if UML felt the taste of vengeance in pursuing LionGold, I would understand and not criticise.
It seems to me on the basis of information provided by UML to...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 3 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)