Bolsters the Lynch defence
The challenge for the plaintiff in this action is to show, on the balance of probability, that the defendant knowingly deceived them by false accounting. Their own world-class accountants produced a report saying don't buy this asset for this price, they don't have an admission of liability from the auditors of the asset, and the defendant is entitled to keep saying that 'my experts said the books were OK, but now I understand that they got this wrong, and your experts said don't buy it'.
I believe that the Secretary of State for for Housing recently stated in the House the old legal maxim 'caveat emptor'. Seems to apply here.
Of course an impartial bystander would wonder at the ego from the plaintiff of spending another $8M in legal fees in a vindictive attempt to draw attention away from their own arrogance, greed and stupidity.
If this is how they run their company, their shareholders should wonder about the safety of their shareholdings. It can't possibly meet the fiduciary duty to the shareholders to continue this case - legally the defendant is nearly a man-of-straw - as there is no hope of getting any of their $8BN back. We used to call this playground spitefulness. And it's not how grown-ups should run a public company.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
