@Aqua65My primary concern re Nathan is how he handled questions...

@Aqua65

My primary concern re Nathan is how he handled questions about his directorships, not the legal proceedings. It was Neal who largely "answered" questions about the SMS contract and the legal proceedings. As I recall it, Neal's response to most everything was "we aren't going into that" - even when the questions were on matters that have zero bearing on the dispute, and/or are a matter of public record. The refrain "we can't comment because there is a court case afoot" is used all the time by businesses which could respond to the given query but which don't want to. And in my view that is exactly what MSV did on the call. Didn't Neal refuse even to say how much revenue MSV had received under the contract? How could that information possibly prejudice MSV's recovery of further amounts? Isn't the amount they've already received a matter of simple and provable fact, which is of zero consequence to whether or not they are now owed $9m? If that is so, why not answer the question?

@ All

I will be interested to see how you feel about all this if and when greater detail is more broadly publicised.