It seems to me this should have been specified in the NR as being the date of the NR. Weakly worded and not precise. Possession doesn't quite equal delivered. They could have picked it up off the sidewalk. It looks like the idea was to avoid hard timelines with the intent that it would be better for us. With negotiations passing the 120 days that assumption will only be correct if it is good for all otherwise should talks fail there will be an uproar. The directors must be very confident we will all like the price. They must also know the price.

If I'm right, there is a third party and a back up deal if that DD doesn't get them excited enough to complete a deal with us. Breaking the contract with us is risky should the fall back deal be crap. We don't want to add a month or two just to be told Teck is walking because we can't agree on a price. Suppose they take the 20%. eg. The co will tell us how good that is but we'll say that could have been done on June 4. Time costs us all so why not stick to the time lines as specified. A third party would know how much time they had to DD and could just add manpower to meet it.

Why are we always on the end of the stick. If the best result is Teck walks then just get on with it.