RE: Dont get lost in the noise here, make your voices heard start emailing them tim.metcalfe@investor-focus.co.uk30 May 2026 22:31
More questionable or speculative
"The defendants played their cards perfectly."
That's an opinion, not a legal conclusion.
Whether they played things perfectly depends on facts we don't know and on what the court actually decides.
"The High Court will heavily favour a stay and send the entire $4.2 million fight back to SIAC arbitration."
That's a prediction, not a fact.
The whole issue before the Assistant Registrar appears to have been whether the fiduciary-duty and other claims are sufficiently independent to remain in court.
If the answer were obvious, there would not have been a contested stay hearing.
The weakest part of the post
This statement:
"If a clean-cut case of standalone fraud had been discovered, Semnet would have marched straight into the High Court immediately."
That's speculation.
Companies discover issues at different times. Evidence emerges gradually. Internal investigations can take months. Negotiations can occur before litigation.
You cannot reliably infer from the timeline alone that the claims are weak or merely "forum shopping."
The Tomolugen point
The reference to the Singapore case involving intertwined claims is a legitimate legal concept. Courts do consider whether claims are closely connected and whether parallel proceedings create procedural problems.
However, saying:
"Therefore the entire case will be stayed"
goes further than the principle itself.
Whether claims are truly intertwined is exactly the kind of issue that depends on the pleadings and evidence before the court.
What stands out most to me
The post assumes several facts that are not established publicly:
that the core grievance is the acquisition transaction;
that any alleged misconduct would necessarily have been discovered within a year;
that the fiduciary-duty allegations are merely repackaged SPA claims;
that the defendants are entitled to a 99% stay outcome.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
