Just read David Conn's article from January 22nd in the Guardian, it does back up projectriver's assessment that he has been briefed with additional information possibly from UEFA.
It also reinforces a bewilderment at how the 2014 settlement can be reopened when it was clearly agreed between City and UEFA that the Etihad deal wouldn't be considered related, in exchange for us not increasing the other two AD deals, UEFA effectively put it to bed. Now I'm sure their argument now will be they wouldn't have done so had they known that Mansour was funding the Etihad deal directly, but considering they were debating whether to consider it as related in 2014 shows they already held this view point anyway and still went ahead with the settlement to my mind.
How CAS consider all of this is anyone's guess, I'm guessing the framework of said settlement could be instrumental in deciding this case now, if it was clearly stated that any issues coming to light at a later date could not void the settlement then we will be in the clear.