Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)

1115116118120121175

Comments

  • edited September 2020
    They need to appeal ASAP I’d have thought as they only have seven days for the Court of Appeal to schedule the case and who knows who is available to read through it all and make a decision. 
    Agreed, I also think the warning on giving leave to extend the 7day injunction being something he would advise either party against, was a shot across the bows not to be tardy in submitting documents - and aimed more at our side deliberately seeing out extra time.
  • Re. the COA, ESI v ESI2 ref CF and QC Chaisty inter alia PE, MM per pro CAFC with regards to PV, AB and TS and EFL - is that possible does anyone know?
    Not only possible, highly likely.
  • Redrobo said:
    Not only possible, highly likely.
    then we are doomed...might as well give up now.
  • Re. the COA, ESI v ESI2 ref CF and QC Chaisty inter alia PE, MM per pro CAFC with regards to PV, AB and TS and EFL - is that possible does anyone know?
    Add to that MS likes a bit of SM
  • Question for anybody sufficiently informed in the technicalities of EFL red tape around club ownership:
    Why can’t ESI Ltd sell its assets* to COC Ltd? What has the sale of Nimer’s and mouthall‘s shares in ESI got to do with anything?
    So long as the next effective owner of CAFC (TS) passes OADT etc why would ESI have to remain involved? It was just a vehicle to acquire CAFC exactly the same as COC Ltd is now

    * ESI’s asset in question being all the shares in CAFC Ltd the entity that holds the football club
  • Sponsored links:


  • Hi Chizz,

    Click on ‘Sign Out’

    Love
    The rest of the Forum
    What?  And lose my only opportunity to reach a thousand? 
  • 36

    There you go Chizz, that'll take you over the 100, and don't say I don't do anything for you
  • The idea was floated yesterday that any sale price could be placed into a court account and then be handed out as per the decision in the November trial - does anyone with more legal knowledge than me know if this is possible?

    If so, that would give me huge reassurance. Even if the process did start to drag, it would give TS the perfect ultimatum: 'offer this remedy or no deal'. In which case, ESI1 would definitely do so, and I cannot see any reasonable way for ESI2 to argue against it.

    Just a question of whether such an option exists?
  •  I'd like to see some concrete proof of Elliott's financial investment?
    surprised more of this wasn't made in court unless of course Lauren Kraemer has seen evidence of him putting money in. Could have made more of the fact that he hadn't even paid the £1.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Cafc43v3r said:
    What about the ECJ or its replacement? 
    The ECJ can hear cases from the national courts through the 'preliminary ruling' system. This involves a national court referring a question on the interpretation of EU law to the ECJ. The ECJ decides the correct interpretation and sends the case back to the national court for a final decision. It is still up to the national court to decide issues of its own nation's laws.
  • It is a pragmatic solution and one that in reality gives Elliott potential access to what we know he wants - money.

    However the problem is in his actions so far in applying for an injunction, then appealling and in seemingly wishing to claim for more permanent relief from trial, he is asking the court to give him specific performance as a remedy, ie. his claim is for the shares and to own the asset, not for its sale proceeds or compensation equal to the value of the shares.

    He may well settle behind the scenes (I doubt it because at the moment he is still facing a very steep task to get an appeal before the Court of Appeal, so no incentive for him to be paid off and certainly not by TS), but there won't be a court sponsored solution like this based on what he is telling the court he wants. 

    Thank you very much indeed, that is very helpful in trying to understand the situation.
  • What I am waiting to hear is that the deal has been agreed, could be signed today but is waiting to be signed with the right decision on Wednesday. As it stands, even without the delay, we are still waiting for that so a week delay may not really make much difference. 99.9% is not 100%. 
  • edited September 2020
    This.
    We all understandably feel immense anger with all that's happened to CAFC courtesy of a cast of tossers and frustration that there's another (likely short) leg to the agony. BUT we're so close to bringing this excruciatingly painful episode to an end.
    Please heed @Scratchingvalleycat 's advice.
    Quite agree but a lot of Charlton fans don't read this site, hopefully the other factions of the fan base heed this advice and can be communicated with. Whether via Twitter, Facebook, (neither of which  I partake in) or any other social media outlet such as CAST news and VOTV. Maybe @Weegie Addick  @PragueAddick and @Airman Brown could use their influence in this regard.
  • What I am waiting to hear is that the deal has been agreed, could be signed today but is waiting to be signed with the right decision on Wednesday. As it stands, even without the delay, we are still waiting for that so a week delay may not really make much difference. 99.9% is not 100%. 
    Would that not give the appeal/injunction more weight? 
  • Would that not give the appeal/injunction more weight? 
    Let's not forget the judge rejected the injunction because there was a real risk of the club going out of existence. The takeover being 99.9% done doesn't change anything IMO. 

  • I'm not so impressed with the judge
    In fact I'm holding a grudge
    He gave us the lead
    Did old Judge Mis-Deed
    But then came an absolute fudge

  • So in a theoretical scenario where the leave to appeal is granted and an injunction until the end of November is put in place, if we become extinct as a result how would that reflect on the courts? Do they worry about perceived publicity in such cases?
  • seth plum said:
    Don't for one minute believe there is any equivalence between Charlton Athletic Football Club established for 115 years as our South East London institution, and Lex Domino a newly created empty shell company invented as a vehicle to squeeze money for questionable individuals.
    If a Judge of any kind can't see which side most wants the best welfare for the main focus of the dispute then they should not be a Judge. Eliottttttt is game playing in order to get money isn't he? Like he wants the best for a football club remote from him and that motivates this litigation? Yeah right!
    I know the technicalities of the law and legal process exist, but so does the basic notion about what is just.
    It is the job of Judges to take into account what is right and wrong and balance that against those legal technicalities.
    I believe our Lauren started out on Tuesday saying the action of Lex Dominican Republic was an abuse of process and she was absolutely right.
    Come on Judges, cut through the fog and mete out what is clear natural Justice in this case.
    In the final washing, the "best interests of the club" are totally irrelevant aren't they?

    Please someone correct me if I am wrong and I hope I am.  The way see it is:

    The judge refused the injunction because it potentially caused more harm to ESI than it did to LD. 

    He ordered a full trial, which means the right, or not, for Elliott to buy the shares in ESI is in dispute. 

    If ESI is sold before the trial it will basically a fight over money between Elliott and Nimer and have no impact on CAFC what so ever. 

    If ESI isn't sold before the full trial and Elliott wins, there would be nothing, bar appeal, to stop him completing even if it ment expulsion from the league.  In the final hearing "the welfare of the club" is irrelevant. 
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!