Ann: Market update - Notice requiring production of documents, page-65

"non-holders are quickly losing the strength of their arguments"

Are you sure you are talking about the same argument(s)? Pretty sure most of the comments from non-holders refer to the likely timing of any successful escrow / fraud claim(s) vs. an outcome on the recapitalisation plan.

Out of interest, which one of those do you think will occur first? Will the distressed debt managers postpone their DFE conversion date to give long term suffering shareholders more time to realise some potential benefits from any successful claim? How would this serve their needs?

It should be obvious to all by now that the interest capitalisation occurred simply because SGH didn't have sufficient cash to make the interest payments over 2 consecutive half year periods. To avoid a response from SWC, I linked the company's own email response to me on this in my last response to you. The working capital loan was provided because the company isn't profitable and couldn't produce enough cash to support its own working capital needs.

"So, I understand why negative posters are deviating from the main targets and direct their attention to less likely secondary goal"

What is the main target and secondary goals?

Not sure if this has already been shared:

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/alliance-news/detail/1494492762275555700.html

Two excerpts that I noted:

1) Watchstone noted that a "groundless claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was dismissed by the independent barrister in respect of the warranty escrow process relating to the sale of the Professional Services Division in November 2016", on the grounds that a misrepresentation claim was not a bone fide claim with a better than 50% prospect of success.



2) Despite multiple requests, Slater & Gordon has continuously declined to disclose key evidence in its possession which would be relevant to the merits and quantum of its purported claims. Watchstone believes this evidence will be available to it in the event that Slater & Gordon issues proceedings and it intends to seek disclosure of such information at the earliest possible opportunity," said Watchstone.

Hmm so the independent barrister, who suggested there was merit to the escrow claim, has apparently dismissed the misrepresentation claim. I wonder if he/she was presented with key evidence that served as the basis for the dismissal...


It seems to be all smoke and mirrors for now. I guess we continue to wait and see.