I’m interpreting that in taking the legal action, VPR asserts:...

I’m interpreting that in taking the legal action, VPR asserts:

1) That appropriate due diligence was undertaken by VPR, and Wescone participated in this.

2) There was deceptive conduct by Wescone during the DD, specifically in relation to the status of the BHP contract.

3) The BHP contract being cancelled would have been foreseeable, if not for the deceptive conduct.

They certainly wouldn’t have much basis for a claim if the DD was less than rigorous, buyer beware etc. etc.