On
Background
In 2019 the Company became party to the JV, and also to a
When the Company became a party to the JV, HMP required it to agree that the Term Sheet remained binding. In
Term Sheet Binding
However, in
Barton rejected this position on several grounds, including that the Term Sheet explicitly provides that it is binding until replaced, and so cannot 'expire', and that HMP itself caused the delay in implementation.
Marmota also claimed the Term Sheet 'expired' "because Ministerial Consent... was formally refused", or it "was incapable of ever being enacted under the Mining Act... (which did not allow for splitting of tenements)."
These claims are plainly incorrect as Barton has previously detailed in prior Quarterly Activities Reports.
Marmota's recent claims are silent on the Term Sheet's status, do not refute Barton's bases for rejecting HMP's new position, and do not address its prior incorrect statements. Instead, they now focus on the issue of access to the tenements which it would have owned but for its repudiation of the Term Sheet.
Barton contends that HMP is barred from asserting that the Term Sheet has 'expired' when the cause of the alleged 'expiry' is because HMP refused to implement its terms, and that HMP has now repudiated the term sheet because it believes there is an alternative commercial benefit to be obtained by doing so.
Historical Gold Production on ML6457
HMP now asserts a JV interest in historical ML6457 gold production. Barton considers this claim to be flawed and based solely upon HMP's repudiation of the Term Sheet. ML6457 was developed by Barton's predecessor in title in reliance upon the Term Sheet, and operated only briefly during 2018.
Barton also understands that only 545.1 ounces of gold were produced from ML 6457. Therefore, even if HMP is able to establish a claim, its pro-rata share of the gold value produced would likely be considerably less than its pro-rata liability to historical costs, which Barton would then seek by way of counterclaim.
Access & Marmota's damages claim
Barton rejects the claim that it improperly restricted JV tenement access. In
The JVA also specifically requires HMP to sign a 'Co-ordination Deed' "regulating the conduct of exploration activities... on the Tenements", consistent with standard access agreements. HMP recognised this and, until Barton's predecessor in title entered voluntary administration in 2018, pursued such a deed.
HMP could have gained access to the tenements at any time, either by implementing the Term Sheet (which it remains obligated to do), or by accepting Barton's offer of a standard access agreement.
Joint Venture Costs
Marmota suggests that Barton has failed to cover its share of JV costs. Barton has paid all JV costs due and any suggestion to the contrary is false.
Offer to Settle
In
Commenting on the matter, Barton MD
"We would not normally provide detailed comment regarding threatened litigation, however Marmota's recent claims require a clear response. These claims are without merit and are of the claimant's own making. "Further, only minimal gold was produced from ML6457. Its cost likely exceeds its value many times over, and if Marmota persists in this claim we anticipate that it will become liable to Barton for several million dollars.
"We are not interested in a protracted dispute and so in good faith have again offered an amicable resolution. However, if obliged to respond to proceedings we will vigorously defend our rights and bring a significant counterclaim."
About
Contact:
Managing Director
E: a.scanlon@bartongold.com.au
T: +61 425 226 649
Company Secretary
E: cosec@bartongold.com.au
T: +61 8 9322 1587
Copyright (C) 2023 ABN Newswire. All rights reserved., source