I am back. So is SGH, page-1717

Precisely, we don't have access to those details so we rely on the announcements from the two companies. But you choose to ignore one of those as per your prerogative.

If you take all of those announcements I strung together, it should become evident that the barrister was presented with a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation (amongst warranty claims) as part of the warranty escrow process. Watchstone have gone on record in an RNS announcement to the London Stock Exchange stating that the barrister has effectively given a negative opinion. This has not been refuted by S&G.

Watchstone aren't backing the barrister's opinion based on their own access to the S&G evidence, they are basing it on the barrister's own access. If this point isn't clear, they are effectively pointing to the independent barrister who holds all the evidence and saying don't listen to us, listen to him.

Ok, so at best 50% chance of success and at worst 0%. Still not a bona fide claim.