only 2 outcomes, page-10

You are in a 50 kph zone doing 65 the cop gives you a fine. You were doing 100 kph you get a bigger fine. You steal a nissan and right it off, courts punish you. Its an Audi, bigger punishment. See a trend? There is unlikely to be a clause saying breaking the agreement makes it void. This is why we have spent 4 years gathering evidence and they want valuations. In a case the accused is allowed a defence, this is not only to be found innocent and let off it can be to get a reduced sentence. Usually duty, intention and consequences are what are important to the court.

If you are interested in AGS as an investment the case and Heathgates defence is relevant. We can only guess if HG will try and settle before the case but being pressured or not is a factor. If they dont settle then the next step is the court and its conclusion.

HGs defence as far as I know is they say they had no duty to inform AGS of the discoveries and it was only a technicality any way. Million dollar lawyers dont get up in front of a judge and talk BS, it is reasonable to assume there is some truth in what they say. I would be surprised if there was no duty at all but there may be different interpretations. If the judge thinks there argument has merit it will be a consideration. If that argument fails or in support they are saying it is technical, ie not material, ie not of consequence. If it is not of consequence there is not really a duty to inform and the intention wasnt to defraud. In my opinion AGS has to prove it was of consequence and saying they wouldnt have renewed or considered renewing is foolish.