This part is an out and out lie: ""We inadvertently ended up...

This part is an out and out lie: ""We inadvertently ended up breaching its covenants there because we settled on land that had covenants that had been removed off it and then an appeal process placed those covenants back on," Clement told the New Zealand Shareholders' Association during a Zoom presentation."

It has been factually established that Synlait knew of the covenants at they rime they made the offer on the land.

That fact established, they then went on and got permission form Stonehill to begin construction BEFORE the high court decision. And indeed the first sods were turned prior to the High court decision. They DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY (and I would go as far as saying recklessly) breached the covenants.

This part is misleading "In the event it doesn't have a favourable outcome, "we are kind of back to where we are today, which is an opportunity to continue discussions with the neighbour around how we settle, or to take further court action."

It is not back to where they are today. They are at a point where all legal opportunities to remove the covenants have failed. This leaves Mr Ye in a position to enforce those covenants. It is worth noting that Synlait, apparently have been in continual conversations with Mr Ye since day one. And to date he has shown no appetite to move from his position. A supreme Court decision in his favour is unlikely to alter that.