Interesting read Dutch, but a complete misread of the filing. "Peter Halesworth's view is one-sided. Although I appreciate his honesty." Honesty? After all of the misleading filings to date? After trying to hide the settlement from SIAF shareholders to keep it for themselves? The filing is full of stretched truths and mis-sequenced events. They accepted the settlement "payment", and called it a "non-monetary" payment because it had no value? Weren't they (per a prior filing) using this "valueless" payment to defray legal costs? Laughable. In August, after the settlement they found out it had no value, so it's really not a payment, or consideration? It was called a payment, but now it should be considered a success fee or incentive fee? Make up your mind. He's a bear caught in a bear trap trying to sweet talk the hunter (the Judge) into setting him free. The Judge will rip this affidavit to shreds in court next month, then approve the settlement. Make no mistake, unlocking the Tri-way value is the end game here, including the Tri-way dividend. Post settlement they will make that happen, or their investments will fail. They are not in this to lose money. If there was no value there last year, they would have walked, and still could have canceled the settlement in August. They did not. Why, because they know they will make money from Tri-way, and maybe even through improved performance at SIAF. Reading comprehension is seriously lacking in this room. Covering misleading statements in court, with more misleading statements in court.
