Your comment (extracted below) is intriguing:
---
Maybe the due diligence was ratchet, but that's why they hired EY and and a bunch of other clowns that's why they are paid the big bucks, they will take the heat. All the due diligence in the world can't save a company from bad management though, and these things happen.
So, you consider that SGH might seek to crossclaim against EY, who are also their auditors (having replaced PP in 2015)? If so, that would then make it very interesting indeed.
The other advisers were (ASX 30/3/15):
- EY
- Greenhill & Co
- Citigroup
- Macfarlanes
- Arnold Bloch Leibler
- SGH's own 70+ lawyers _+ management + executive + board.
This, from the PSD ASX announcement of 30/3/15:
----
"Full suite of financial accounting, tax, legal, property, regulatory, industry and IT advisors appointed. .... Review of 8,000 cases by 70 lawyers over six weeks."
Then this, from the PSD ASX announcement of 30/3/15:
----
Slater and Gordon is being advised by Citigroup and Greenhill (joint financial advisors), Macfarlanes (UK legal counsel and legal diligence), Arnold Bloch Leibler (Australian legal counsel), and Ernst & Young (accounting and tax diligence).
And this from Skippen's interview with The Director (1/8/15):
-----
"Slater and Gordon is being advised by Citigroup and Greenhill (joint financial advisors), Macfarlanes (UK legal counsel and legal diligence), Arnold Bloch Leibler (Australian legal counsel), and Ernst & Young (accounting and tax diligence)."
Trouble is, even if SGH doesn't crossclaim against ABL or EY, others that they crossclaim against might well do the job for them. In some respects, an even better plotline than the best of things that good old JR could dream up against Bobby, Cliff and co.
Expand