To what end? The only purpose it would serve is to wind themselves up or supply ammunition to wind others up. Even then their "findings" could be so way of the mark they just end up looking stupid.
You know I don't mind end up looking stupid. I do it all the time.
What I have extracted so far - and I am still not through day three - is more about the narratives both sides have presented and less about all the technical stuff like references to previous cases.
So far I believe the council when they argue the rent strike put ACL in distress. I believe the council when they say up till August all parties agreed and acted within the common plan - the roadmap. I believe the council when they argue the bank would never agree to sisu buying the loan at £2m-£5m.
Similary I believe sisu when they say they never went behind the councils back in an attempt to buy the loan. That makes no commercial sense as it would start a bidding war. I also believe sisu when they say they were completely unaware of the councils decision to leave the roadmap. Finally I find the councils argumentation for buying the loan to be flawed and based on false premises. Even the council QC made a flawed argument that the value of ACL at the point of deciding to buy the loan was not £6.4m as claimed by sisu but at least £10m. That argument is flawed as the loan then exceeded the perceived value of the company and thereby left the loan with not enough security.
It's funny you acuse me of purposely supply ammunition to wind others up. Isn't that what has happened in general from ACL (Weber Shandwick) since January 2013? The difference is that I at least try to back my arguments with the facts presented to the court in the hearing.
But I have to agree with posts in this thread saying that nothing said or argued here will have any bearings on the outcome of the JR. I never pretended it would.