People should pay attention to paragraph's 40 to 55 where the Court found Eric liable for knowingly deceiving Mr. Pearlman with Fraudulent Misrepresentations.
They should also note what was noted in the annual financial WB filling report about the case
During the reporting hiatus, litigation was filed in Ontario as a motion for summary judgment in the matter of C. Perlman for the plaintiff to obtain clarity as to the amount, timing and nature of repayment of working capital loans.
You need only read the case, to see that it was not about really obtaining clarity as to the amount, timing and nature of repayment of working capital loans. At best one could argue feebly they had to clear that up but what brought this case to begin with was, was Eric defaulting on the loans and then you have the Fraudulent Misrepresentations.
If someone suggests this might be manipulated they need only to go