I am back. So is SGH, page-1735

But isn't your position that the independent barrister has a positive view of ALL claims including the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation? So in effect, your position is that Watchstone have lied on record to the market? Please correct me if I am mistaken here.

So S&G are choosing not to refute something they know to be false? How would it weaken their case if it did? Wouldn't they owe it to their shareholders to correct their record? Feel free to jump in here.

What's funny is that your accusation of Watchstone lying is akin to it making a fraudulent misrepresentation, the very claim that S&G are pursuing them for!

Here is the excerpt from the Watchstone announcement. I am not Watchstone, they are a public company in case you weren't aware. My prerogative? Sure, take SWC's opinion over an announcement to a stock exchange.


"The Opinion... was formed on the basis of evidence provided by both SGH and Watchstone"

But you are implicitly stating that SGH have withheld special key material evidence that wasn't presented to the independent barrister for what reason? Extra ammunition come court time?