Ann: 2015 Annual Report, page-4

Nice first post fatso,
IMO they should sue, if the quality was not what was stated... then they should be liable.
Think about it in reverse, if we ship a fish to a restaurant and it has three eyes - we should be accountable.

If CSS were clever enough they should try and take an out of court sum, then work with the said supplier to produce the required pellet, then they would have two suppliers that they could rely on, this gives you options, keeps both suppliers on their toes (quality, delivery etc) and piece of mind if one fails you can rely on the other to supply (also, they are more likely to pay a out of court if they know they will get business out the other end of it all)
just my opinion tho

I'm still thinking how the hell CSS got 97% survival rate, seems way to high to be true
And if it was 97% why did Foster and others have there bonus forfeited, (page 19) surely the production manager did his job if 97% target was hit.
I'm sure there was other factors involved which we are not privy to and I'm prob overthinking things, but it does make you wonder.