Well, the litigation could be a problem because the potential damages, as related to the share price drop, are large. Also the number of claimants could be high.
The non-disclosure relates to the two dates: 21 Aug 2007 - when the 2006/2007 MFS Annual Results were reported, and 22 Jan 2008, when there was a Business Update. The Update details the relationship with MFT, that MFS held 16.9% of MFT, and that they were the responsible entity for the MFS Land Fund. Presumably this is key information that should have been announced before, and may well have affected an investor's decision of whether or not to buy MFS.
The update also mentions that 19 MFS staff worked with MFT in managerial roles. What that means I just don't know.
MFT seemed to be saying MFS were not running the Company.
MFS might have some contingent liability because of their role in running the Coy and being the "responsible entity".
MFS might have insurance against a non-disclosure "slip up" of this type. Normally they would be expected to state that in due course - we'll wait and see.
MFS
mfs limited
