Talbot Smith Update, page-18

Simple takeaway from this is:

U.S. District Senior Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania didn't agree with the plaintiff that the company's conduct would rise to level of contempt, but he did agree that it would warrant payment of attorney fees related to the disclosure of a confidential recorded conversation.

This is simply due to Unilife sharing the recording with an outside (unrelated) attorney for the criminal charge on Smith. Usual posturing by the lawyers and nothing to try and turn this into some major event, I know you come here every now and then to try stir this up into something bigger than it is. I'll leave it at what it is and stand by my original post as I have discussed it outside of HC etc, and let the last line in the article say the rest:

Although Unilife has a policy of not commenting on ongoing litigation, its lead attorney at Reed Smith, Carolyn Short, prepared a statement saying, "We look forward to our day in court where we expect the evidence will show that the plaintiff's allegations are false and have no merit."