"SI gov't signed a consent order which we have no further...

"SI gov't signed a consent order which we have no further information as to the explicit terms of it. Is it conditional upon a win? It is very likely that it is and the SI government is simply stating that if the court decides in favour of SMM and the other claimants then we will allow this with no objection."

On what basis do you think that this is to be interpreted as being conditional upon a win?

Nowhere in the document does it state that it is conditional upon a win. In fact, if it was to be construed that way, the whole document would be meaningless. In other words according to your interpretation, the SI government is saying "if we lose, then we concede defeat" - but what does it matter once they have lost? Once a party has lost no concessions or objections by them matters anymore.

In support of my take, I draw your attention to the following:

"The Government will consent to the Court giving judgment against it to give formal
effect to that agreement."

The SI Government doesn't need to give consent AFTER judgment, because that is pointless. It is saying that right now, it will consent to the court giving judgment against it. Consent only holds any relevance before judgment is handed down.

"Even if the government has "sided" with SMM, it means nothing because the case is before a court and the "government" has no say in any way."

You're right in one sense - the fact that the SI Government has sided with SMM is not decisive. However, the attitude and position of the SI Government is relevant to the decision making process. That's why in court cases, the judge wants to know the position of each party - ie do they oppose, or do they consent? If the SI Government agrees that the awarding of the initial tender to SMM was valid and that the subsequent cancellation was invalid, that is relevant to the judge's decision making process. Yes, the judge decides that issue at the end of the day, but it still seeks what the views of the SI Government is on that point.

Let's go back to the commencement of the proceedings - SMM were saying the cancellation of the tender was invalid, and the SI Government was saying it was valid. The judge would have noted "ok, that issue is in dispute between those two parties". Now that the SI Government has changed its tune, the judge is equally within his rights to note "ok, that issue is no longer in dispute between those two parties".

How the SI Government is defined doesn't detract from the fact that such an agreement has been made.

Also, I think it was somewhat ironic that you noted the separation of powers, but then go on to include the Judge as making up the government.

"There is a huge amount of bias in this document due to the very nature of the source: SMM, a party in the case. Obviously they are going to skew and present facts that benefit them to appease shareholders and higher-ups."

Ummm ok...just like AVQ announcements. You even went on to acknowledge this when you said "They have provided everything positive and nothing negative, which is to be expected - both companies have done that"

"Some preliminary questions reveal an interesting story:
Why has it taken so long for SMM to submit this to the public domain?
Why have they not revealed everything in this report?"

You might also want to ask why AVQ hasn't informed their market of this news.

"They say that Axiom and the A-G did not present any "significant" evidence as if it is a huge win. Why? Did they need to? Did SMM f^*k themselves over in the trial? Why would Axiom & co not submit any "significant" evidence or call any witnesses? Axiom have paid a lot of money for a great legal team. It simply does not add up. This fact alone supports everything that has been said about the trial thus far: that SMM have royally screwed themselves over in the course of the proceedings (admitting to bribery. mail interception, contacting witnesses etc). "

I think we can all agree that AVQ kept its case short. Whether that is a good sign or not is very subjective and differs according to differing legal opinions. AVQ may have seen it as a forensic advantage, whilst SMM saw it as a forensic disadvantage. Each to their own.

"They have not revealed ANY information regarding judgments handed down in the case."

That's not correct. Their litigation update of 12/11/13 informed the market of, amongst other things, AVQ's application to have the injunction discharged and the subsequent order of the court that the injunction continue. Link here:

http://www.smm.co.jp/solomon/others/pdf/131112.pdf

"Is the government portraying support? IMO it is not, rather it is the government remaining impartial to the proceedings as they simply must do. "

Hard to construe this as being impartial when it is formal consent orders with only a selection of the parties in the case, as opposed to every party. If this agreement was made with AVQ instead of SMM, would you still think it was impartial to SMM?

"It is on a shady back-up server hosted by the SMM website."

Ok mate.

In the past people have said that SMM is a large company and that this trial probably doesn't hold as much significance to them as it does to AVQ. Well, then there's your reason why they haven't put much prominence on their announcements relating to this case.

"Basic pricinciples of law - whatever the Court decides the "Government" (made up of the executive, legislative and the judiciary) must accept the decision unqualified."

You're right, and therefore there's no point in the SI Government in making this "conditional upon a win".

And for those that continue to attack the substance of the announcement just because it is not printed on their letterhead, please note that most of their other announcements are not printed on their letterheads either. IMO this is a bit of a weak argument which acknowledges the strength of the announcement.