CYL Broker Data, page-13

Hats off to Annie and hubby running the press headlines but this nothing burger of a case that is over 6 years old is a ‘try on’ especially that mining has not yet commenced in the old VAN tenements. There is no revenue or loss of earnings relating to the Marymia region. Therefore ZAG has not suffered any loss of revenue, future earnings or committed to any costs. Also you need to read the judgement and the related agreements: the PSA which is not in dispute by either party which ZAG will receive $6m once the tenements (Marymia) go into production. The second agreement is the BTS agreement which focuses on K2 (still not in production) the judge dismissed the 50% claim and awarded ZAG a 4.1% beneficial interest in K2 plus special costs (this is the current dispute re the $ amount to be awarded for special costs) furthermore ZAG must pony up 4.1% of the costs of mining to receive a 4.1% beneficial interest in K2. I am not saying ZAG is not entitled to any awards. But it’s immaterial to CYL but not to ZAG whose MC has averaged $6m over the last 3 years. This legal case is ZAGs only real asset. My only criticism is once again James usual tactic of taking disputes to the steps of the court house before deciding to negotiate a settlement!