more on the statement of claimHope everyone's not tired of navel gazing on it all.
Re: conveyance of an interest: No interest was conveyed. The voting agreement bought a vote, not a material interest.
Re: first right of refusal: I guess that's why Shore bought and continues to operate krt as a subsidiary. Again, no interest conveyed. But I wonder if part of DB's legal thinking orients around the $10 M coming from Shore and not krt. This may also figure into DB wanting to see the voting agreement.
On litigation costs: (I ain't a lawyer but) this doesn't appear to be an evidence-intensive or complicated case. The litigants will be able to make their respective cases in short order. A decision shouldn't be too far behind. Can't see direct costs amounting to more than pocket change. I can see indirect costs (e.g., delays in bringing FALC to production, impact on sgf's share price, not to mention any future pp's) being considerable. Should DB lose its case, is it inconceiveable they would be liable for at least a portion of those costs?
Re: DB's claim of irreparable harm: should this go to trial (I'd give that eventuality a one in 10 shot), the grounds for this claim should be very interesting.
Shore has a fixed period in which to file its response. Once filed, it too will be a public doc, and should be at least as interesting as the statement of claim.