SHG Value, page-110

WTG don't think they have a liability to SGH. Having read the claim, I can understand why. The fact an acquisition turns out to be a disaster doesn't mean it was the vendors fault. Imagine a scenario in which a very profitable business was put in the hands of (say) SWC to run by the buyer, but because SWC was utterly clueless on the mechanics of business or anything else, the business pretty quickly failed (as it would). Would it be for the vendors to recompense the buyer for his losses because a blithering idiot the buyer appointed couldn't run a tea shop, let alone a semi-difficult business?

They'll probably have Christmas party anyway - the claim seems to be by disgruntled shareholders in Rob Terry's time at the helm. Not sure they'll get far - the principle: 'caveat emptor' always applies. If people invested in RT they should have known what they were getting. QPP/WTG didn't set the share price.

jmo