Dismissed claim?, page-71

SGH really do appear to have painted themselves into a corner over the purchase of PSD.
Let's not forget they could have gone down the route of claiming against the warranties given.

AG had previously described the warranties as "extensive"; I sought clarification from WTG at the time since they described them as "limited" and was informed they were "customary".

It is obvious the SGH cannot have had the intention of claiming fraudulent misrepresentation until recently. They certainly did not inform the market earlier which I assume they must have had to do since it would be highly price sensitive info.

They also allowed £3.8M to be previously released to WTG without objections.
WTG amicably settled SGH's claim from the £5M held in escrow to cover the sale with no accrimony or need for legal action.

SGH were dealing with a reasonable company and it is probable that the two parties would have come to a equitable agreement over the £50M in escrow too and SGH would have seen a handy injection of funds assuming they had a valid claim.
For this reason I believe SGH do not have a valid claim.

The level of proof of misrepresentation is going to be huge in comparison.
imho this indicates that SGH did not have sufficient grounds to claim on any of the warranties and they see no downside in making a reckless claim.

imho The current action will be long and drawn out as it is to SGH's advantage to delay since once this is cleared up there is nothing further to stop the lenders from asset stripping SGH during a firesale break-up of the companies. This is nothing new though, rather it continues SGH modus operandi and explains the delay in taking legal action.
This delay together with previous non-action on warranties for so long indicates a level of desperation now.

It would conveniently allow SGH to bury any skeletons they may have from the purchases of other UK businesses prior to QPP PSD but the more time SGH can buy to put such issues into the past the easier it
will be asset strip the remaining value while keeping the CA at bay.

The chance of success is extremely slim but the risk/reward makes the outrageous claim worthwhile and crucially it buys them time and I believe it is the latter reason the action is being taken.

It is a sorry state of affairs for retail investors, since they are at the end of the queue as far as creditors are concerned and I don't forsee any legitimate news that will favourably affect the sp.
In the meantime, I'm watching closely for further divestment within the UK.