I'll preface mine on this one re the Williamson filing with a few caveats...
First, I've only just looked at the Williamson filing once, here, quickly, this morning. Second, I'm overly tired, have caught a cold, and my head may not be working too well today, given jet lag, and another trip from hell on the Doesn't Ever Leave The Airport Airlines, whose Southeast Atlantic feeder in particular has proven a bit of a nightmare this trip. I'm still traveling, but should have a day or two in the same spot now to clear my head a bit, and will look at it again, "soon". Anyway...
The first and most obvious bit I see is that it seems it shows that Williamson appears not to concur fully with Daic in the wholesale moving of some bits of the contest out of the Federal Court venue and into the state court venue. I'll have to look more closely at that aspect a bit more carefully later...
Second, the very condensed version in the gist of what I see:
Seems that what it really says is that Williamson basically claims "I'll not admit that there was any wrong that was done, but if there was any wrong that was done, it was Daic that did it, not me". It appears Williamson is even joining with CLYW in making some of the claims against Daic. Again, I'll look at that bit more closely again later.
Third, the denials I note in it seem to be structurally in conflict with some of the admissions, and in a couple of instances some things appear not to be fully self consistent, either. I don't know if that has Williamson disagreeing with himself in a way that is meaningful or not, yet... and again, I'll look at that again later.
Looks mostly like Williamson is trying hard to avoid accepting any of the potential liability for any wrong doing that was done, by claiming "Daic did it" while still trying to claim a full right to his claimed interest, because he didn't participate in the decision making, so didn't really know what was going on ?
The filing seems kind of oddly out of synch with the rest of the flow we see occurring... mostly consisting of Williamson saying he wants to keep any possible benefit which might come out of the wrongdoing done, while claiming none was done, and that if any was, he isn't either aware of or responsible for it.
It seems it does highlight a couple of issues that exist in terms of different claims made re the nature of the relationship between Daic and Williamson... in a way which seems certain to make that issue a specific point of focus in some future filings.
Too early to tell, I think, what the actual intent of the Williamson effort is... given it is probably buried in some nuance of omission in one item.
I'm still not disliking the potential, perhaps all that it intends, for keeping some of the elements contained in the issues it addresses before the Federal court. Worth watching to see how change in other areas will relate back to the posture shown in this one...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
