Does anyone understand why SGH would go against the opinion of the independent senior barrister which they themselves selected?
The WTG RNS stated:-
'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 ("Opinion"). The Opinion, which was formed on the basis of evidence provided by both SGH and Watchstone, stated that a misrepresentation claim was not a bona fide claim with a better than 50 per cent prospect of success.'
We can only assume that this is factually correct, especially when WTG's leading NED is a QC.
Taking an educated guess that one of you has some local knowledge/insight......
Any thoughts?
ATB Grumpy
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 12 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
$51.61 |
Change
1.520(3.03%) |
Mkt cap ! $21.00B | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| $50.59 | $52.05 | $50.35 | $23.49M | 454.7K |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3110 | $51.53 |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| $51.92 | 294 | 1 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 16.10pm 18/07/2025 (20 minute delay) ? |
| SGH (ASX) Chart |