MOJOBU,
I represent myself. I've had AGS on my watch screen for quite a long time but never really followed it too closely or was tempted to invest in the company until now. I'm buying into the story now as it looks to me that a turning point has arrived. That doesn't mean all the problems have gone or the style of management is suddenly going to change. For all their faults, the management haven't given up trying to hold their ground as best as possible and this has obviously impacted some shareholders through dilution and a falling share price. The directors can not be completely to blame as they will also have been relying on professional advice.
I don't know if you read one of my earlier posts but I was once involved with prosecuting an action in the Federal Court and was left to represent myself when I couldn't find an alternative supportive lawyer in Perth, when my own lawyer got suspended just after he had lodged my claim. I ended up arguing against a motion to strike out my statement of claim before the judge and against a partner of a St George's Terrace law firm who charged $350/hour at the time and this was some years ago. He tried to confuse me with a convoluted Peter and Paul argument. I had no choice at the time, it was do or die, so I listened to his argument carefully. Come my turn to reply I retorted with a..... but what if Paul question. He had made his argument so convoluted to trick me he ended up confusing himself in open court. At that point the judge started taking me more seriously and I argued my case as best I could with the limited knowledge of the law I had managed to learn in the few weeks before the hearing. At the end of the hearing I was expecting the judge to make an immediate ruling, but instead he decided to hold over the matter in order to prepare a written judgement. When the judgement was returned I read it and the clue to how to successfully reformulate the pleading of my claim was written in the judgement. The judge had given me the key, the way forward.
In all honesty and in my complete non-legal opinion the same has happened here. The key to the potential success of AGS's new action lies in the dismissed appeal judgement paragraph 71
"These clauses may be contrasted with the provision made in cl 10.11 for the appointment by Alliance of Heathgate to market and sell “on its behalf” its share of minerals other than gold produced by the mining operation. This provision envisages the creation of an agency relationship for a specific purpose. It is one of the specific provisions contemplated in the exceptional category for which cl 13.6 allowed. Another is cl 4.4(d) which expressly authorised Heathgate during the Free Carry Period to apply for any substitute or successor title to the Tenement."
and the preamble to paragraph 65
"Clause 6.3 imposes limits on the liability of the manager inconsistent with those that would ordinarily arise from a principal and agent relationship. Clause 6.3 provides:Heathgate as Manager shall not have any liability to the joint venturers for losses sustained or liabilities incurred if, in the circumstances of the particular case, it has acted or refrained from acting in the course of an effort made in good faith to perform its obligations under this Agreement and has not committed any act of wilful misconduct and has not been grossly negligent. For the purposes of this clause “grossly negligent” means such conduct as constitutes a reckless or wilful disregard for harmful and foreseeable circumstances."
The judges refer to clause 6.3 to further make the point that the JVA in the large does not create an agency relationship between Heathgate (as Managers) and Alliance.
So paragraph 71 above and these 13 simple words "inconsistent with those that would ordinarily arise from a principal and agent relationship" are IMO the key to breaking the Quasar/Heathgate strangle hold on Alliance.
Sorry MOJOBU but I'll continue to use my sign off to protect my own interests. Hopefully this will all be over soon enough and Alliance can start benefiting from their interest in the mine. Having said this, if the action is successful and Alliance's interest isn't sold, long term holders might still need to show patience until the full benefits of their shares in the company flow back to them over time.
These are just all my speculations and opinions, I'm not a lawyer, I have never had any legal training. Do not rely in any way on what I've said. Do your own research. Seek professional advice if you are unsure about any investment decisions and their suitability to your particular circumstances.
Eshmun
MOJOBU,
I represent myself. I've had AGS on my watch screen for quite a long time but never really followed it too closely or was tempted to invest in the company until now. I'm buying into the story now as it looks to me that a turning point has arrived. That doesn't mean all the problems have gone or the style of management is suddenly going to change. For all their faults, the management haven't given up trying to hold their ground as best as possible and this has obviously impacted some shareholders through dilution and a falling share price. The directors can not be completely to blame as they will also have been rely on professional advice.
I don't know if you read one of my earlier posts but I was once involved with prosecuting an action in the Federal Court and was left to represent myself when I couldn't find an alternative supportive lawyer in Perth when my own lawyer got suspended just after he had lodged my claim. I ended up arguing against a motion to strike out my statement of claim before the judge and against a partner of a St George's Terrace law firm who charged $350/hour at the time and this was some years ago. He tried to confuse me with a convoluted Peter and Paul argument. I had no choice at the time, it was do or die, so I listened to his argument carefully. Come my turn to reply I retorted with a..... but what if Paul question. He had made his argument so convoluted to trick me he ended up confusing himself in open court. At that point the judge started taking me seriously and I argued my case as best I could with the limited knowledge of the law managed to learn in the few weeks before the hearing. At the end of the hearing I was expecting the judge to make an immediate ruling, but instead he decided to hold over the matter in order to prepare a written judgement. When the judgement was returned I read it and the clue to how to successfully reformulate the pleading of my claim was written in the judgement. The judge had given me the way forward.
In all honesty and in my complete non-legal opinion the same has happened here. The key to the potential success of AGS's new action lies in the dismissed appeal judgement paragraph 71
"These clauses may be contrasted with the provision made in cl 10.11 for the appointment by Alliance of Heathgate to market and sell “on its behalf” its share of minerals other than gold produced by the mining operation. This provision envisages the creation of an agency relationship for a specific purpose. It is one of the specific provisions contemplated in the exceptional category for which cl 13.6 allowed. Another is cl 4.4(d) which expressly authorised Heathgate during the Free Carry Period to apply for any substitute or successor title to the Tenement."
and the preamble to paragraph 65
"Clause 6.3 imposes limits on the liability of the manager inconsistent with those that would ordinarily arise from a principal and agent relationship. Clause 6.3 provides:Heathgate as Manager shall not have any liability to the joint venturers for losses sustained or liabilities incurred if, in the circumstances of the particular case, it has acted or refrained from acting in the course of an effort made in good faith to perform its obligations under this Agreement and has not committed any act of wilful misconduct and has not been grossly negligent. For the purposes of this clause “grossly negligent” means such conduct as constitutes a reckless or wilful disregard for harmful and foreseeable circumstances."
The judges refer to clause 6.3 to further make the point that the JVA in the large does not create an agency relationship between Heathgate (as Managers) and Alliance.
So paragraph 71 and these 13 simple words "inconsistent with those that would ordinarily arise from a principal and agent relationship" are IMO the key to breaking the Quasar/Heathgate strangle hold on Alliance.
Sorry MOJOBU but I'll continue to use my sign off to protect my own interests. Hopefully this will all be over soon enough and Alliance can start benefiting from their interest in the mine. Having said this, if the action is successful and Alliance's interest isn't sold, long term holders might still need to show patience until the full benefits of their shares in the company flow back to them over time.
These are just all my speculations and opinions, I'm not a lawyer, I have never had any legal training. Do not rely in any way on what I've said. Do your own research. Seek professional advice if you are unsure about any investment decisions and their suitability to your particular circumstances.
Eshmun
Expand