From the Blodget article: "Based on a review of the facts we've seen, the case against Chanos and Kynikos is problematic, while the one against SAC is very weak."
This whole situation is really bizzare to me. His admonishment of SAC assumes that the information released is the only evidence which is to be presented. This assumption is either irresponsible, niave or completely biased. Would a firm like Fairfax file a $6B lawsuit with only this in hand or is it more logical to assume that they filed with this as only a portion, potentially small portion, of the total evidence they have collected. I would opt, looking at this objectively, for the latter.
Quickly now, let's sum up what has become clear in the time since the lawsuit was filed.
1) Gwynn was fired for improper actions regarding his FFH report.
2) Gwynn's original report was factually incorrect by his own ommission a couple of weeks later and his second report (The one where he said that FFH was $2B underreserved as opposed to $4B) has also shown to be wildly incorrect.
3) A noted short-seller had the report before it was published.
4) Spyros Contengious (sp?) has shown to be a slime-ball.
Now, if these are the only bullets in FFH's gun, they have some compelling evidence, but likely not enough to have any chance to win a $6B lawsuit against all of the defendents. However, if this is the tip of the iceburg (as I think that it will end up being), then it has got to be a little disconcerting for the defendents, especially considering the dribs and drabs that come out reinforcing nefarious activities.
FFH may not get dime one from these folks, but if this curbs such nefarious activity, it is money well spent.
-Crip