I don't think the government appoints lawyers for defendants in civil cases, but I don't know that for a fact.
As for Plant's interest being the same as Cyberkey's, that's not clear. From what I can gather so far, IMNSVHO, Plant's main defense is he saw no evil, heard no evil, said no evil. Apparently he is claiming that fraud was perpetrated by someone else.
If that is truely his defense, then Cyberkey has no defense. If any fraud was committed by any officer, and that includes his previoulsy identified scrapegoat, Cyberkey is guilty. Period.
So, if nobody is claiming that no fraud occurred, what defense has Cyberkey got?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
