I am back. So is SGH, page-1740

You fail to miss the finer points. Let me explain them to you.

Watchstone and S&G presented separate evidence to the independent barrister. Watchstone didn't get to see S&G evidence, nor did S&G get to see Watchstone's evidence. This negates your point on not disclosing evidence before court. Do you disagree?

The Watchstone announcement suggests that S&G presented evidence to the independent barrister for multiple claims as part of the warranty escrow process, including a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. The announcement goes further to state the barrister, on the basis of evidence provided by S&G (and not disclosed to Watchstone) did not consider this a bona fide claim (not greater than 50% chance of success).

So just to be clear, you are suggesting that S&G did not want its fraudulent misrepresentation claim as part of the warranty escrow process to succeed? This is why it has withheld key evidence, which you have no factual basis in knowing, and will reveal this evidence in its second and separate legal proceedings for the same type of claim?

I prefer to rely on stock exchange announcements