Carrot I think that both companies have claims over the disputed ground, thus the action to "Quiet Title". Rye Patch has LH and OG claims and CRI has N claims. Since CRI assumes the validity of their N claims, as it seems they assert in their Supreme Court (NSC) filing, then a mention of disputed mineral title is not seemingly a factor in their current statements about their future development of their published resource at Rochester. I think they judge they will prevail, what else are they going to say?
The NSC pending ruling is important IMO. IT SEEMS TO ME that after this NSC ruling, one of two outcomes is most likely; either a trial is assured and uncertainty remains until its conclusion OR the parties will move towards a fair settlement. No question in my mind that Bill Howald was bold when Rye Patch Gold staked the LH claims, In My Opinion, he was acting properly as the "prudent man" and in the interest of RPM shareholders. I hope for the second outcome..
Not Investment Advice, DYODD. In 2012 I was a contract geologist for Rye Patch Gold. I respectfully limit my conversations with Rye Patch Gold to the specifics of my confidential contract assignments and do not seek any other information or initiate any discussions with Rye Patch Gold concerning other Rye Patch Gold projects or attendant issues beyond the information that is published and available in the public domain.