"Yes SGS has admitted that there were/may have been problems but this NR sounds to me like SGS was threatening NOT with a law suit?

Does anyone else read that ?

And I hate to say it but if results were really good would they have looked for anomolies in the results? or did they look because results were not so great?"

And you deduce this because? It would not be NOT that needed to cover hence SGS providing this report to regain credibility. What is it you hate to say? You provide two opposing scenarios though the article,if you read it, is quite clear as to what happened. Which one of your scenarios do you side with? I must say your vagueness is rather confusing. Are you Bull4now or Bear4now.