Lack of Due Diligence argument -
Calder investment was for PR to publicise the game because if noone has heard of it how can it sell. this means Calder was given reassurances that the project was near completion...9 months ago. DD would (should) have shown this game was nowhere near 9 months from release as stated publicly.
Showed a video / mocap etc - how did they know what they were looking at? If CR has a history of showing videos and lying about them being completed gameplay to both Publishers and Gamers, then how hard is it to lie and convince someone who doesn't really know, what they are looking at? DD would show that as you already know, there is apparently not much to show...or surely youd have seen it. CR knows they cant get a video past the gamers anymore but they can still get one past an investor.
Published Accounts in UK - these show irregularities or mistakes. DD would normally ask that these are corrected before investing as you dont want to be held accountable or financially responsible for something that happened before your time. No corrected accounts have been submitted.
No penalties or focus on release has become apparent even during the last month of the Quarter of the projected release of SQ42. This could point to no such clauses existing. If my money was for future PR Id want to make sure the current PR was not damaging the company or my investment, costing me more money or meaning my money was spent to undo the damage. DD should have put this in place. If the game was later than planned I would want control or input into the PR / Statement to protect my investment.
2nd Investment from Calder, call it a top-up - Why was this needed. What DD showed that this was needed? What possible explanation would satisfy this being needed when the game hasnt released, the 1st investment on PR hasnt been spent and there is still no actual release date? This screams lack of DD or worse. It also could be perceived as yet another example of sunk-cost fallacy.
And again, it wouldnt be unheard of for someone to ignore the logical conclusion or professional advice in favour of friendship or potential ROI, you may even class it as High Risk in your portfolio and term it acceptable risk for your expected or believed ROI despite what your advisors say. You cant just say because someone has money they are infallible to the same mistakes as everyone else.
Against:
Perception of normal business practices mean DD was fully carried out and standard safeguards are in place. (I thought the same about CryTech but hey ho)
Maybe thats why the investment is for PR, maybe its ringfenced until certain conditions are met as protection because DD showed that investing in the actual product or company was a no-no. So the money cannot be spent until release and Calder can get it back at any point before that. No need to have penalties or push to market in this case, the exit plan is to get the money back as it shouldn't have been spent. Maybe its in one of the other companies accounts as protected investment.
All just opinion but based on the irregularities in the expected process so far and suggesting why they exist. There are other interpretations, some are libellous, but I cant see one where proper and thorough DD shows that this is investable.
.
