KLEBPET. Ok, I get you now, I do see where the issue is, and it is a technical one. I think the argument here is really that even if the 'letter' in question wasn't forthcoming, would it be reasonable to say that the Counsel was not knowledgeable concerning the intended use of the facility ? That was my point. Also, was it the intent of the Counsel to keep this information of requirement from FITX, until such a time as to deny the facility after the fact ? In the letter to shareholders, I think the argument leans to the latter, just based on the content of the letter. Who changed their mind and why ? I agree that is the sticky issue, that you brought up, but, for them to claim ignorance is absurd in the formal and informal sense.
I just don't see it holding water here. GLTA