SAS, yes I agree it seems to be going off topic, but my point is that although the spotlight is on the 225/L2 at the moment, it has also been on other modern types such as the 92 in the past for events of the same severity. In part the spotlight was less bright because these events didn't happen in CAA-land.
Yes I am saddened to see the 225 taking a beating because I know just what a good aircraft it is, always accepting that all helis have their issues including this one! But those specific issues aside, it is overall a really good pilot's machine with better range/payload than the competition.
It's interesting to review the S92 EOP and see just how clunky it is compared to the Super Puma family.
Anyway, regarding your specific points yes it is bound to affect profitability in the short term. I suspect that EC's liability in law goes no further than the purchase cost, since consequential losses are always excluded in sales contracts. You wouldn't buy a new car and then sue the manufacturer if it broke down on the way to work and you lost a day's pay.
Yes it's reputation has obviously suffered but hopefully this is only a short term issue and in 5 years time it will all be forgotten, just as its competitors' major events have been.
As to resolution timeframe, I know no more than you do which is that the current thinking is February.