Settlement/purchase options, page-475

AGS stated at the onset of legals that they were damaged by the actions of Q but they were not asserting anything illegal had been done by Q. If you look at point 2 on the gaurdian doc Eshmun posted as a link yesterday defining what conspiring to defraudwas, I think it said an individual can conspire to defraud a partner without breaking the law, ( something like that). This almost read the same as what AGS said at the outset, so maybe intention to defraud the partner can be proven without it being a chargeable offence under the law. This therefore only becomes a civil case an maybe much easier for the Judge to decide, this would still make the AGS case and would be grounds surely for an unconscionable behavior claim which I think was needed to be proven to dissolve the JV, all very interesting imo. Just my thoughts I might be talking total nonsense (not unknown).