Remember, the judge is reflecting what has been represented to him in the filings. He has no independent knowledge of Triway, nor would he utilize such knowledge in a ruling.
The plaintiff's represented that Tri-Way's value is "speculative"- which is what the judge actually said. That is obviously true, since the shares are not currently traded, and so SIAF's estimate of value as of 2-3 years ago is, again obviously, not an accurate reflection of current value.
If the plaintiffs wish to recover their costs and make a profit on their SIAF and TriWay shares, they will act in a fashion that benefits all shareholders.
That's a good result, and that the reason the settlement was, and should have been approved. As always, execution going forward will be important.
