Thanks for finding that paragraph GS. I knew I'd seen something like that when I initially read the new Q, just a little tired when I made the post you've replied to.
Can't say with certainty that a verdict/settlement on the case with Montecito constitutes a "material event which must be reported." Maybe xzx can chime in on this since xzx has already had to remind me of this regulation a couple of times. If it IS a material event then it would of course already have been reported if the case had been settled.
I know that the Parish of Orleans Circut Court has records available online for anyone willing to pay $100 to access them. No idea what, if any additional clarity the records would provide.
I'll admit I'm cheap and don't want to spend the $ to see what's there, but my experience with online court records (in real estate foreclosure cases) coupled with the "pre-approval commitment of $8.5 mil for Vermillion development has me thinking I'd end up wishing I'd spent that $100 on a couple more shares WGAS.
As for an unfavorable settlement on VM179 being "cause for concern." Won't argue that would suck, however I'm of the opinion that the value of the Vermillion lease isn't really built into the current pps, so while the pps might take a hit if we "lose VM179," afterward non-dilutive financing for, say, D-Bar would easily cause the share price to correct and surpass the VML179-inclusive valuation.
my 2
