Here are the key words..."speculative in whole or in part" I did not say that I believed there were NO provable "damages"... I've long agreed that Cowan made a mistake, and of course, TAUG should recoup any $$$ they PAID for that faulty audit....
BTW...HAD TAUG actually PAID for that audit??? Because I think there was something in the deposition that said otherwise.... I'll have to go back and wade through the whole thing again...
But that's besides the point. Throughout this mess I've said that I believe TAUG is trying to embellish their (alleged) "damages"... The MERGER STORY is one of those things that I feel is an "embellishment"... SO...CAN IT BE PROVEN IN COURT THAT THE (ALLEGED) MERGER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED AND WAS NOT JUST "SPECULATIVE"???
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
