ferroglobe-accuses-asx-company-of-using-confidential-ip-after-failed-collaboration, page-332

In a case of litigation, sometimes, the less said the better.
One would expect that the directors have discussed this with the solicitors, in relation to keeping the market informed.

Any and all words put into the public arena, in relation to litigation, will be latched onto by the other party.
So, while they review the documents, it would be prudent to say as little as possible, as otherwise, one innocent wrong word can lead to a failure.

This is why you will see the words at the bottom of posts, "not financial advice" and the like. So that someone doesn't take the words out of context, and use it for their own gain.

So, while FG will proceed with the court process, it does not mean that something else "could" be occurring in the background. It would be prudent for FG to make any claims in the most timely manner, if they expect to have any possible positive outcome for them, otherwise, "why did they take so long?". This is now a given. If something in the background fails, should it actually exist, then FG still have their proceedings to fall back on, or they just walk away with nothing. While this is being nutted out, if it is even happening, it would be very quiet out in the streets. Hence the radio silence. I would not expect any answers directly, as otherwise, I am getting inside information, while everyone else starves. Not appropriate.

Whilst on the surface, there is obviously an issue, at this moment, I cannot point that toward ADO, as nothing I can see which is public domain says it is. I expect this specifically is the reason that the internal documents leading to the Patent were sought. Continuance does not mean something is there.

Unfortunately, only time will tell.