RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: REED LAKE ON SCHEDULE! GO U, I think we need to draw some distinctions as to what the claim is about. An ore body is at the centre of the dispute. However, the suit is not about the ore body, it is about a financial contract and one side now becoming unhappy with the way the contract is being applied.
From what I can tell, Dunlop was given cash and shares in VMS for the property in question. Dunlop can earn $$$$ mostly from share price appreciation under this contract. Dunlop is petitioning now that VMS opt not for its 30% stake in Reed Lake, but that VMS opt for a 2% smelter royalty and is seeking in injuction to force that course of action.
My take--this seems like a serious decision that would be made, by the board, keeping in mind the interests of all shareholders. Dunlop was granted 3 million VMS shares and, from my point of view, that is not a majority stake in VMS so Dunlop should either let the board do its' job to maximize shareholder value (and get out of the way) or sell.
Or buy lots at these prices and then drop the suit when finished buying (but that is just my sarcastic side coming out...).
But either way, this is not about ownership of the ore body. It is about how it is to be managed by it's rightful owner, VMS.