Thanks Eagle. You have a good understanding of how it all works. I'm more or less wondering then how you can argue caveat emptor and then turn around and acknowledge that warrenties exist for a reason. If Quindell lied or overstated certain facts and valuations (theres plenty of evidence to suggest that they could have in the public domain... only insiders know what is commercially a fact), a successful claim makes total sense to me. Why would you say with any certainty that WTG won't have to release the money back to SGH when neither of us have access to the discussions and data from when SGH were doing their DD into the aquisition? Surely the fact that the auditors also signed off seems to suggest the data itself - perhaps the unaudited sections, was untrue or misleading? IMO a company which has been in trouble with serious fraud before is only likely to be guilty of other breaches where they think they can get away with it too.
SGH Price at posting:
40.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
