I'm about to ask a question at risk of sounding completely thick, but it's been on my mind.
If the hearing is expected to last 10-12 weeks, yet we're told that if they can't prove fraud/concealment/conspiracy stuff then the rest will likely be time barred - would it be seen as a negative sign if the case does indeed last this long?
IE, would we cautiously hoping this is far shorter because the main allegations haven't been proven so the rest is time-barred and not discussed at length, or would the case going on as long point to a negative for us that they have potentially/likely proven the substantive stuff?
Sorry - I know there's probably an obvious answer to this, but just something which has crossed my mind so thought I'd ask those with experience of this sort of stuff how that would work.