Pretty sure the contract would have been produced by law...

Pretty sure the contract would have been produced by law professionals whose job is to make sure that there wouldn't be any "escape" clause that could be exploited without somekind of heavy penalty. Logically speaking, why on earth would sigma sign a contract deal with someone when a party can just unilaterally wiggle out? My brain is not CEO or lawyer but I think the logic just don't add up much like when UBS said that accounting changes would have an impact on RFG (bought at the drop and rode to the top). As for CH2 taking over the role of supplier, now I have no clue about the size of that company but I doubt that CH2 would take over. Reasons are two folds 1) Sigma presumably is a much larger company then CH2 and would have been able to squeeze margins better 2) Even for sigma the margin is already wafer thin. Under those reasonings would it make sense that CH2 would be able to undercut sigma? NO FRIGGIN WAY IMO unless CH2 prepare to cut it losses and that if CW can wiggle itself out of the contract in the first place, which I sincerely doubt. I personally I think it is smoke and mirrors from the part of CW, then announce intention to change supplier, predictably sig share takes a dive, CW bought sigma shares and up they go. That what I would have done if I was a CW executive especially since CW is privately owned. Easy double dip on the sauce. Business is dirty, EXTREMELY DIRTY. To be honest I am actually quite impressed on the part of sigma executive to be so honest about the potential financial impact. Personally I bought sigma shares when they first dropped heavily sold at the .90 mark and rebought at the 0.795 mark and here I am again...