Well, I am not getting into sideshow semantics....but I would...

Well, I am not getting into sideshow semantics....but I would make the rather obvious observation that a publicly listed company, in normal circumstances, would not even entertain the thought of acting against their legal advice. 

But, even if they did make such a big call like that, I am certain they would have publicly announced an explanation as to why they disagreed with their lawyers. 

What I am still grappling with, is why risk spending $1,000,000 in legal fees in the hope of not having to pay $939k to a service provider?

I'm probably missing something, but it seems equally as obvious that the "deal making decision" was based on how much they hoped to get back in the cross claim. Maybe the management were sufficiently satisfied that "we can't lose" and hence, maybe they felt they didn't need to consider the financial ramifications of such an unlikely prospect?

I know it is all done and dusted, but I just like to try and understand certain things - which is how I learn.