Mr Batista Esq. can assert all he likes but how is he going to establish to the court's satisfaction it was Smart Win's declining to complete the loan that was the reason (direct or even indirect) for MRT granting only a reduced area exploration licence? He could try to subpoena the Director of MRT and the Minister for Resources to give evidence but I say good luck with that.
I have already given you a perfectly good (indeed probable) alternative reason that would explain MRT's action which does not involve Smart Win. Malcolm has form with MRT, lots of it, and from well before Smart Win appeared on the scene.
And that is before we even get to considering how the lost ground can possibly be valued at $1.1 billion.
Nope, no more than 5 minutes work for the court I'd say. I only hope the judge doesn't have a stroke from laughing too hard and the matter has to be held over indefinitely.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.