RE:legal battleagain - I beg to differ (a company's market cap has nothing to do with litigation)....here is the excerpt from CIBC....which is VERY revealing.....
____________
Canexus believes MEG has no right to refuse the tie-in works as under the
agreement it was specified that CLB will be delivered “from the Lamont Station,
then through the new Canexus pipeline to the MEG Lateral Line, connecting to
the Canexus pipeline for ultimate delivery to the NATO terminal… specifically the
Pipeline Agreement expressly provides from the new Canexus pipeline from
Lamont Station to be tied into the MEG Lateral Line.” One clause of the
agreement requires MEG to construct the Interconnection facilities to tie-in the
new Canexus pipeline from Lamont Station into the MEG Lateral Line. In the
alternative, “Canexus will construct facilities to tie-in the new Canexus pipeline
from Lamont Station into the MEG Lateral Line and that MEG shall make its
facilities, personnel, rights of way and lands accessible to Canexus.”
However on August 20, 2014, MEG advised Canexus that it withholds its
permission to perform the tie-work because “Canexus had not executed further
commercial agreements demanded by MEG” (not specified which ones).
_____________
If Canexus and MEG are in a legally binding contract - then CUS stands to win significant punitive damages in the event they win a court case....my guess - they will settle and this "fear" overselling will likely correct.