appeals case, page-95

TerryA... my take is that the law says that:
- if you know something valuable about an asset
- and are in a relationship with the owner of that assets
- and you dont share that knowledge
- and you derive a financial advantage consequential of that less than candidness,

then any or all gain might by a court be taken from you and returned to its owner ... the basic ideal is to restore the damaged person to the palce that would have been had they not been misled.

all a lot of ifs and buts and maybe and could bes in there IMO. But that is what I understand the basic components of AGS claim is. Its target is certainly 100% (ie get the 75% back) but it would be pretty happy with 50.1% I suspect.

of course only a judge can sort this mess out...