Two Sides of the Coin, page-3

Rockjumper, if VMC were to lose, I don't think that the damages would be necessarily linked to the change in share price of SPX (the $90m you refer to). Firstly, if VMC were to lose, presumably the share price of SPX would jump back up. Secondly, the loss (if any) in share price to SPX is a matter for SPX shareholders, not SPX as an entity itself. And if VMC were to lose, one could argue that the final resulting share price of SPX is then not impacted at all by this court case, as SPX would have won and have no case to answer for. Therefore any change in sp between pre litigation and after courts have made their decision could be argued to have occurred from other factors non related to the court case. It is too blurry and muddy to just equate the change in sp to this case. At least in my opinion.

I think the more likely damages would be loss of reputation for those involved, legal costs and other not easily quantifiable damages such as stress. Those could still be significant, but I think in order for the courts to award these sorts of damages, it probably needs to be proven that VMC were reckless or negligent in the pursuit of this matter, ie they hold a ridiculous and untenable position. I doubt this would be the case, as lawyers acting on behalf of VMC wouldn't want to waste their time. Their must be evidence that at least supports a "reasonable" VMC position. If VMC believe that they have a case, then I don't understand how they could be sued for wanting to have their day in court.

At the end of the day, no-one knows. Put the same scant facts that we have in front of 100 lawyers and you will get 100 different opinions. I can at least say unequivocally that I am one unhappy camper that the sp is now approaching 6c and I wish I had a stronger constitution in which case I would invest more at this price. But it's anyone's guess and I am one nervous nellie!