Bottom,
I see in the 9/29/3 opinion, top of page 27, that the issue of what caused the sale of RFC - either the breach or the service subsidiary limitation, could not be determined by the government's motion for summary judgment. I don't see where the court decided the issue in Anchor's favor, but is simply supporting their decison that such questions would have to be decided by the subsequent trial and not trough summary judgment. If you see something more favorable in the opinion, that would be quite useful, perhaps you could guide me to the page number.
I am aware that the plaintiff testifed that RFC was a fire sale, but it is also true that during and after the trial the gov claims they have evidence and testimony that 'claims' Mr Large stated otherwise at various times. (I'm sure you could even confirm this with the attorney) I am trying to discern if their defense is from immaterial things taken out of context, or if it is material. The defense says some of these statements by Mr Large were in Anchor's SEC filings at the time, which I intend to try to see if I can access somewhere on the net; though I doubt I will be successful because of their age.
I have not sold my dimez.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
