Cosette Case Weak, page-3

Cosette wouldn’t walk into litigation here lightly, even if its disclosures have been vague on quantifying how the MAC was breached. Pendal / Perpetual strictly speaking relates to liquidated damages as an insufficient surrogate for specific performance. The latter is totally distinguishable from Cosette’s concerns here. I would be anxious about Cosette’s claims regarding due diligence breaches; breaching Australian consumer law; and the very woolly EBITDA quantification, which is constructively vague for the bidder. You may find that the Supreme Court is unduly receptive; and remember that Judges love the opportunity to innovate. You may find the Judge (Black) will relish the chance to find a violated quantified MAC, since if nothing else it will be a novel result in Australian law. This isn’t Twitter 2.0; remember that Musk waived due diligence. This could be Fresenius 2.0, given Maybe’s terrible tendency in recent disclosures / rightful upbraiding by ASX since March.