Another (mini) dissertation;

So, the 'Judge' acknowledges that " The Court HAS NOT been asked?" or words to that effect.

Does this mean it is still open to conjecture?

(CONJECTURE: reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence)

Surely it is up to JWS to 'extract the digit' as many irate PIFers would term it.
Some of these lawyers need to pull their weight and show some backbone instead of chasing the dollar.
Apart from the PIFAG would it be possible to contact Johnston at JWS to have this verified,
although not much faith has been shown to them from previous legal endeavours.
Questions of this sort are generally fobbed off.

The Court has not been asked to determine what caused the Fund to fail,
although had the case run to trial it would undoubtedly have been required to do so.
At this stage one can at least say that the potential candidates include:

i) illegal or fraudulent behaviour by some of those involved in its management;
(ii) bad investment decisions;
(iii) the credit crisis; or
(iv) a combination of one or more of the above.

These reasons will not resolve that debate.
But the short list provided above does afford valuable context
in the process of considering the extent of Ms Waters'
and KPMG's liability for what occurred.

And ponder we continue,

Regards,

PS. Whole exercise proved strenuous when the reading went beyond 15 pages promisedd by some.
15  I could handle, but 37 convoluted legalese apologetia was hard to digest.