Last week's court battle between Sisu and the Alan Edward Higgs Charity ended in a no-score draw.
The charity's bid to recover legal costs of £29,000 from Sisu for the failed deal for Coventry City's owners to buy their half share in the company that runs the Ricoh Arena - ACL - was denied by the judge.
Equally, Mr Justice Leggatt rejected Sisu's claim for £290,000 after the hedge fund claimed it was the victim of a conspiracy between the charity and Coventry City Council.
The court fight, involving Sisu's legal team of eight and the charity's double act, was merely a skirmish ahead of the Judicial Review in June but undoubtedly provided an insight into the case Sisu will make at the Judicial Review that will examine the validity of the £14million loan the council made to ACL.
Sisu's underlying argument was that the charity and the council - joint shareholders in ACL - sought to undermine the owners of the football club in a "secret and perverse" plan that led to the council buying ACL's debt from Yorkshire Bank and becoming the firm's banker.
But while the court case ended in an expensive stalemate, what did we learn about the fight for control of the Ricoh Arena? We've gone back over hundreds of pages of transcripts from the three-day case to examine some of the main points raised in court.
1. Sisu claim both the club and ACL were close to insolvency
Our verdict: Certainly the club was struggling and most people can agree the £1.3m rent was way too high. Chief executive Tim Fisher is quoted in Sisu's legal documents as saying that the club would file for insolvency if a stadium deal wasn't reached. ACL is a different matter.
Most Read
The club not paying its rent made the business weak and evidence was presented that the business could do a lot better but Sisu's own document outlining their case quotes Yorkshire Bank, which had a loan to ACL, saying: "with appropriate cost savings, a solvent debt restructuring could be agreed".
In other words, it would appear that the bank thought the company could carry on in business and pay off its loan.
2. SISU offered to pay off the bank debt and buy the half share of ACL from the charity, in return for an affordable rent and a long lease
Our verdict: This looked like a great deal for all concerned. The charity would cash in on its share, the club would get a reduced rent (it was hoping for around £200,000), the council would get increased revenues as AEG, which runs the former Millennium Dome in London, would be brought in to help operate the stadium. There were of course a lot of ifs and buts, the main one being the charity getting a fair price for its share.
The charity and Sisu signed an outline agreement for the half-share in ACL for £1.5m up front and £4m in shares in the new stadium company which it could cash in at a later date. This £4m seemed to be a sticking point but why did the deal fail? After looking at the books Sisu wanted to pay the charity closer to £2m rather than the total of £5.5m originally agreed on.
The judge said last week: "There was no real prospect of a deal on those terms being done and neither party had any appetite to seek to pursue any negotiations based on the term sheet to attempt to conclude such a deal."
Doesn't seem anyone was working too hard to get a deal done. It is worth noting that while Sisu planned to pay off ACL's debt to Yorkshire Bank at a big discount, the Bank rejected the council's offers of £6m and £12m before settling for £14m of the £19m left of the original £22m debt.
Don’t miss
3. The club could take a rent holiday' while negotiations took place
Our verdict: Sisu's lawyers suggested in court that everyone was OK with this but the court heard the charity's Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen wrote to Tim Fisher on March 11, 2012, making it clear that City failing to pay rent was a non-starter and demanding guarantees of funding for the club and any sale of the charity's stake in ACL.
4. The Higgs charity and the council hatched a "secret and perverse plan" to do a deal with Yorkshire Bank without Sisu/the football club
Our verdict: Mr Justice Leggatt certainly didn't seem to agree when he cleared the charity of any wrongdoing and went on to say Sisu's allegations were "misplaced and it is unfortunate that allegations were made in some of the terms which have been put forward by SISU in these proceedings". In court, Sisu pointed to the 'August report' - written by the council's Finance Director Chris West.
We haven't seen the full report but parts of it were been quoted in Sisu's 35-page document outlining its case. It says there was a "stalemate" with Sisu and outlined the need to "stick together to protect our joint interests".
Is there anything untoward in the council trying to protect a taxpayer asset? Interestingly, it also suggests continuing to discuss the main deal with Sisu "to keep communication open" adding "we may need a fallback position". Was it secret? Not on the charity's part as they testified in court that they had assurances from the council that Sisu would be told.
This apparent pledge by Chris West was made five months before the council agreed to buy ACL's debt and at that point it is clear that Sisu were not aware of the plan as it was voted on in private by the council.
This version of events has yet to be refuted but further evidence may emerge as part of the Judicial Review.
It's difficult to take Sisu's complaint seriously when the court also heard they used CBRE - the property firm working on their plan for a new stadium - to approach Yorkshire Bank behind the backs of the council and the charity.
5. There was a meeting, called by Yorkshire Bank's advisors Deloitte, on December 10, 2012, between all parties - ACL, the city council and Sisu - to discuss restructuring the debt - supporting a long-standing claim that the council and Sisu had been in talks over the debt before the council decided to buy out the debt on its own
Our verdict: When questioned about this during the High Court hearing, Higgs trustee Paul Harris was quite clear that this meeting had nothing to do with restructuring the debt and was specifically about trying to find an acceptable rent deal.
Summing up: Mr Justice Leggatt was pretty clear in his rejection of Sisu's conspiracy theory and aimed some criticism at Sisu's allegations against on the charity in his judgement. It will be interesting now to see whether this has any bearing on the forthcoming judicial review in June.
Mr Justice Leggatt's rulings in the case in full
You can also click here to read the transcripts from the three-day hearing in full