I don't think there is any misconception about what "opinion" or "interpretation" here. What some, including myself, have tried to do, is eliminate the opinion defense by solving for a few of its inputs.
Speaking frankly, I have never seen anything remotely compelling to support a pay out case here. But I can tell that the argument in favor of it is not a specific theory about how things have/will go down, its more of an aggregation of perceived inconsistencies that when all combined, leave some to believe they don't know whats going to happen and its therefor subject to opinion. If we look at each of these "inconsistencies", though, there is now almost nothing left to the argument. It REALLY
strains credulity that the outcome is subject to opinion where there is almost no sensible argument for it.
*the Visolis transaction - well this has been eliminated entirely as this was based on the second party to the JV completing a secret, announced transaction. No one with a brain can now say there is any chance this has happened.
*name on the land title registry - you know what happened there
*the settlement - it has been proven that the settlement does NOT involve the company
What is left to support any "opinion" about a payout? If nothing or almost nothing, its disingenuous to a good faith argument to call it an opinion.
