Your point is without foundation.
And if you were conversant with the applicable law you would have realized there was very little chance of success. Counsel for the Plaintiffs faced an uphill battle from the start.
Also one reason parties engage top flight counsel (and AIG had them) is that they take care of the case so the client can get on with their business.
This was a business deal between informed represented parties - equity, fairness and credibility are rarely issues. In this case the deal was papered seven ways to Sunday and a basic rule is that documents speak for themselves and are not modified by claimed oral representation except in very limited circumstances which were not evident.
As soon as it became apparent that was the basis for the Gaglardi/Beedie claim informed legal pundits realized that this was a desperate attempt by the Plaintiffs to try to rescue a business deal that they had botched. And counsel for AIG and Orca Bay recognized it as well so they let the Plaintiffs flail away on non-issues that made good newspaper copy but had no real bearing on the case.
Madame Justice Wedge was very clear in her decision on the issues of credibility and fairness between business people in a business deal.
8] Credibility was a matter of much debate among the parties and took up a significant amount of time at trial. Gaglardi and Beedie mounted extensive challenges to the credibility of Aquilini, McCaw and most other central witnesses who testified on behalf of the defendants. Aquilini and Orca Bay challenged the credibility of Gaglardi in many areas of his evidence.
[9] However, very few of the findings of fact on which the outcome of the case rests required an assessment of credibility. In the few instances in which a particular finding of fact required resolution of a credibility issue, I have indicated whose evidence I preferred and why. With respect to most key facts, findings of credibility were simply unnecessary.
[10] The challenges brought by Gaglardi and Beedie to the credibility of the various witnesses related primarily to the timing and content of the discussions between Aquilini and Orca Bay representatives concerning Aquilini’s interest in acquiring the Canucks after he left the group. As will become apparent in these reasons, I have concluded that inquiry was for the most part irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute.
...
[436] Aquilini did not owe any duty of fairness or good faith. This was a high-stakes, arm’s length business transaction and all of the players in the piece, including Gaglardi and Beedie, were entitled to act in their own self-interest. They all did so.
[437] In any event, neither Aquilini nor Orca Bay acted unfairly.
