Thanks Phnewby, Yes it's a bit more complicated than meets the...

Thanks Phnewby,

Yes it's a bit more complicated than meets the eye. I don't claim to be a lawyer, from my school days I remember their are 5 parts that make up a contract including legality of terms and certainly of terms.

Whenever there are conditions there will always be interpretation as to when or if those terms are met.

There's an article in The Australian about the case. Peter Cook is pursuing this firstly on principle (a litigation lawyers wet dream). Secondly on the basis that the clause "in the absence of a better offer". Which is a standard term allegedly left out at TAM request to keep MLX on the hook. Finally based on the quality of the asset.

I noticed TAM just sold a tranche of their NST shares and allocated $300k for the current 1/4 legal costs. I doubt that if either party prevails they'll offer to carry their own costs.

TAM may have (IMHO) better served their shareholders by fielding other offers before they signed an agreement that was intended to be binding. The fact that NST made their offer 3 weeks after the MLX notice might suggest that they became aware of it when the market did. Poor form in my opinion.