WTG Defence, page-144

I'm not sure what Anchorage have in mind. One thing though, I don't understand those that talk of AC taking it private. A company is a company whether public or private is largely irrelevant. In both structures the model has to work to make a buck. There are extra costs with a public but that is marginal in the scheme.

I also find is strange how AC seem to have gone from financial wizards, sharks not to be messed with, to naive gamblers taking a punt. There is irony, AC preying on a company that failed it's due diligence in a matter of months lacking due diligence itself in evaluating SGH - if go down the line if some posters on HC.

I dislike hedge funds with a passion but I equally respect their ability to flush out whistleblowers and do the numbers. I doubt AC do not have a plan. Adjusting a plan is fine, one might say good practice.

Regarding the defence. Where is SGH plaintiff's submission. How can anyone pass judgement on a one sided read if a defence is beyond me. One thing about the English language is how rich it is and open to twisting interpretations without necessarily lying. Probably most languages the same I only speak English!

The manner in which the defence is written reads damning. However, if read the submission perhaps that would bring into question key points. Judge's are nit about emotional value judgements, it struck me there was perhaps too much ridicule in that defence - could that be desperate defence to influence and twist. I think it could backfire on the defence but that largely depends on SGH solid evidence.

Wait and see!