RE: What goes around comes aroundYes HBM longs did read the judges' decision. It all boils down to a judgment that, simply put, requires HBM to allow access of its accounting records to the auditor appointed by CAA for that purpose.
The judge did make a general comment in conclusion about the more practical way of resolving the matter between the parties without the need to run through an exhaustive process. It is a point well taken which I am sure the management on both sides would be happy to do so that each can get on with its own business.
However, the ruling of the Queens Bench did not go into the specifics of the agreement considering what constitutes the accounting process in arriving at the profitability of the 777/Callinan mine. This is the heart of the matter and also the heart of HBM's contention that for all intents and purposes delineates and limits the extent of the payment of the NSR. HBM was making losses up to 31 Dec.2004.At best one can surmise that the years relevant to this CAA's point of contention would start with Jan.2005. But there are other financial restrictions built into the agreement regarding cash flow considerations that will possibly limit the 2005 year's NSR.
The accounting facts being the case, it is premature for anyone to attempt to quantify a financial judgment on HBM ( assuming there was one, and if so, for what duration it was that the operations from the said mines became profitable which the records will show clearly without dispute), until, as I said in an earlier post, that the auditors from both sides have combed through the records and set things in perspective.You would have noticed that the courts did not make a presumption on the financial dispute of the case.
I am quite sure the HBM CEO and directors on HBM some of whom are professional accountants of record will know how to deal with this matter in a cogent, fair and legal manner.