It's true by definition...
I don't have any information at all about any settlement agreement that has not yet been finalized... and, in fact, I still question whether there is one that exists now, or if one has ever existed. Turrini could have made the whole thing up as far as I know. I don't think that is improbable, either, and I don't accept others statements claiming that "fact" of existence.
I do accept the fact of there being an outline of "an agreement in principle" that the board addressed. The boards action made that real, whether there was nothing else real behind it or not.
That isn't the point, though...
Given what they have SAID... about the "changes" that have been required... and about the nature of the imposition of the requirement for them ?
Their own statements are what requires that the basis has changed.
I'd include in that the obvious... that they started out saying "the deal was already all but done"... in every element but a few details. And then, as they've clearly shown, CHANGE HAPPENED...
The fact that CHANGE HAPPENED... defines a change in the basis in principle on which the board acted.
They clearly cannot proceed... without the board revisiting what the terms are... given the basis in principle has changed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
