Is a good point and a cautionary tale for all, never allow yourself to be part of an untruth for the sake of expediency. Stems from Willie's time I think. Seem to remember we were presented with a very good series of reasons for going along with publicly Willie's story of "target benifit" pension. If recollection serves it was a "without prejudice" sort of tacit consent because on this occasion our objectives aligned and it suited our cause to keep shtumm. Roll on a few years and he's fired for an alleged conflict of interest and then on to bigger things and we are left with the toxic fallout. A clearly chartered defined benifit pension, and a rather nieve market place who didn't perform due diligence and an outstanding management team who are/were creating a viable solution while running in my view the finest small European airline, supported by an accommodating but understandably wary staff. Big Bucks, big pressure game now heading for conclusion. What could stop them now, certainly not mol with his company of despair.
Management stating that there was no further liability would be classified as a statement of fact which would only have been made with legal advice.
Shareholders who bought in the original offer have a right to rely on facts used in the Offer documents..................
The fact that management wish to conduct something different doesn't preclude shareholders from suing and claiming compensation for what was in offer, they are at a financial loss, it is their money that is being used.