NIHL, page-151

That's what makes the MB CA laughable.....even if they were successful in proving Part 1 - Misleading the Market etc....they then have to work out the damages (Part 2). Now as you mentioned there have been various factors which have likely contributed to the SP falling including the short selling activity as well as the general broad market conditions. Then we have the announcements regarding the ASIC investigation and UK PI Reforms.....the list goes on. IMO most of the SP fall action would be considered to be unrelated to Part 1 and therefore can't be attributed as a basis for damages.