Not sure why you think I should be able to answer to your...

Not sure why you think I should be able to answer to your questions, Joe Dohn - how would I know? Could be anything.

SGH may have asked for guarantees (warranties) on what legal fee revenue they would achieve from inherited cases, but they won't have got any. That would have involved QPP (now called WTG) anticipating the findings of courts and the attitude of different insurers, inter alia. Warranties are never given about future performance of a business that's being sold because the vendor has no control over how that business is going to be run in the future. Warranties are about issues of honesty of disclosures made about completeness and title (of liabilities and assets) on the date of transfer. 'Future performance' guarantees may not be given, but full access is always allowed to an intending purchaser to complete DD and form own views. 'Caveat emptor' is always alive and kicking except when there can be proven to have been: 'intent to deceive'. Is this what you're suggesting there was here? Do yourself a favour and google what had been going on in QPP (and was still not resolved) at the time AG struck and did and said everything we now know about.

If you're suggesting dishonesty, take it up with someone else. I'm not playing.

It's pretty obvious to me what happened - time will tell if I'm right or wrong. Certain people are trying to dodge blame and it's getting pretty desperate imv.

That's it from me for a while but, like Arnold: