George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Yes that's correct but the binding agreement works both ways, why didn't Eqtec purchase the site/SPV, if they had done that then there would be no issue? They kept extending and extending and I think Logik just had enough?
Have you ever thought there may be wrongdoing on the side of Eqtec here and actually Logic might have a case? Who is the buyer of Deeside and what roles have eqtecs employees and consultants had with this purchaser..
A statement from Logik Developments said: “At present, no such claim has been served on either Logik Developments Limited or Logik WTE Limited and we cannot, therefore, comment on the precise nature of EQTEC’s claim.
“It is correct that we have been in discussions with EQTEC in recent months about their alleged claims and such discussions have been conducted through legal channels via our respective solicitors.
“We note from EQTEC’s announcement that the total amount claimed is circa £4m. This is surprising to us given that all pre-action correspondence to date has been limited in value to claims amounting to circa £2.9m. It therefore appears that EQTEC have acted prematurely in issuing Court proceedings against Logik in circumstances where they have not provided any details about the balance of their alleged claim (totaling £1.1m) as they are specifically required to do as part of any legal process before Court proceedings are issued.”
The statement added: “We refute EQTEC’s allegations entirely and in the event that any claim is served on Logik, this will be defended to the fullest extent.
“We also note that EQTEC claim that they have made numerous attempts to engage with us towards a resolution of these matters more recently through legal counsel. EQTEC also claim that we have rejected invitations to work through the issues constructively or failed to follow through on an agreement to meet with them.
“This is, quite simply, incorrect and as part of the recent correspondence passing between our respective solicitors, it was actually us who offered to meet with EQTEC’s representatives to try and engage in commercial discussions with them in an attempt to resolve matters; however no response at all has been received from EQTEC or their solicitors to this offer of a meeting and that was where matters stood prior to EQTEC’s recent announcement that it has issued a claim against Logik.
“In the event that EQTEC consider that they have a claim against Logik for any alleged breach of the SPA or the Deeside Project, then that is a matter for them and this will present them with a damages claim; however, as explained, we refute EQTEC’s allegations entirely and consider that there is no legal basis to their claims. We will have no hesitation in defending our position through the Courts if that is what is ultimately required.”
Re the announcements yesterday and from DP track record I wouldn't believe a word of any of details in them, They have been working on Billingham for 6 years and couldn't fund it and over 3 years on Deeside and couldn't fund it, does that not say something about the technology. It would be interesting to see who the buyer is on Deeside and what technology they are using...