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

sillav nitram

Scratchingvalleycat said:

carly burn said:

orpingtonRED said:

After catching up with this and the takeover thread im more confused than i was 2 weeks ago.
Does todays hearing impact on the takeover or not? 
Anybody able to answer briefly please.

 Possibly, but Sandgaard doesn't think so.

Elliott is seeking an appeal against judge Pearce's decision that he doesn't own ESI.
If his injunction is approved today then a court case to overturn judge Pearce's decision will be heard in November.

That will have an impact on who Sandgaard has to do a deal with. But it is rumoured that Duchatelet has binned both ESI's off and is dealing with Sandgaard directly. So what happens today with both ESI's is irrelevant.
.However, the EFL appear to be holding back on their verdict on Sandgaard leading many to believe that today has some significant relevance.

Elliott is not seeking an appeal against  a decision by Judge Pearce on ownership of ESI. That will be decided by a trial currently to be held in late November. The aappeal today is over Judge Pearce's decision not to prolongue the injunction sought by Lex Dominus over the sale of shares in ESI by panorama magic  to an other be it Sandgaard or Sanda Clause.

If, as Sandgaard has suggested, this is an irrelevancy to his purchase, it can only be in my mind because he believes that he believes that there is already a mechanism in place which allows the recovery of the shares in CAFC from ESI by Staprix. Otherwise it would be relevant because to acquire the club because he would have to wait until the November court hearing for the partipants in the appeal to slyg it out as to who owns ESI.

My belief is that either Staprix and their lawyers are nervous about the recovery, i doubt that since they would seek indemnity over their action from the Sandgaard or that the recovery cannot go ahead until they have a buyer who is  entitled to acquire CAFC and operate the football club . That is the decision of the EFL and is currently being witheld, because I am assuming the EFL are hedging their bets against being sued by a Lex Dominus owned ESI..

Therefore in summary the hearing today is not relevant to Sandgaard buying from Staprix, but Staprix will not trigger the approval of the Sandgaard/Staprix  SPA for the club because the EFL have not apprived Sandgaard as an owner and are worried about having to run CCAFC themselves.

Imay be barking up the wrong tree maybe even the wrong wood, but that is the  only logic that I can see.

Spelling mistakes and typos, have you been drinking?

soapboxsam

Chizz said:

I just hope today doesn't turn out to be the calm before the calm.

Is that not an improvement on the storm before the storm ?

mascot88

let's hope the courts do not reward these total f**** who's primary goal is putting a communities heart and soul on the line to flip it and make some cash they don't deserve... 

If they fell dead on the way into the court I'd be delighted

fuck em

i_b_b_o_r_g

Is anyone listening in to this today, or is that not possible?

golfaddick

So, let's get this straight. This is an appeal to overturn Judge Pearce's ruling that an injunction to stop ESI selling its shares to anyone but Paul Elliott is wrong.

The fact that an injunction is a mechanism to stop something happening, and seeing as the original injunction hearing was 16 days ago, makes ruling against an injunction a farce.

Me - "stop - you can't sell that its mine"
Judge "no it's not - sale can proceed"
Me - " I'll appeal then"
Judge " you want to appeal, oh that's a different matter then. Stop the sale"

So, you have a Judge saying you cant stop the sale but appeal that decision & the sale is stopped.


Bonkers. The law is indeed an ass & I'm a banana. 

Scratchingvalleycat

sillav nitram said:

Scratchingvalleycat said:

carly burn said:

orpingtonRED said:

After catching up with this and the takeover thread im more confused than i was 2 weeks ago.
Does todays hearing impact on the takeover or not? 
Anybody able to answer briefly please.

 Possibly, but Sandgaard doesn't think so.

Elliott is seeking an appeal against judge Pearce's decision that he doesn't own ESI.
If his injunction is approved today then a court case to overturn judge Pearce's decision will be heard in November.

That will have an impact on who Sandgaard has to do a deal with. But it is rumoured that Duchatelet has binned both ESI's off and is dealing with Sandgaard directly. So what happens today with both ESI's is irrelevant.
.However, the EFL appear to be holding back on their verdict on Sandgaard leading many to believe that today has some significant relevance.

Elliott is not seeking an appeal against  a decision by Judge Pearce on ownership of ESI. That will be decided by a trial currently to be held in late November. The aappeal today is over Judge Pearce's decision not to prolongue the injunction sought by Lex Dominus over the sale of shares in ESI by panorama magic  to an other be it Sandgaard or Sanda Clause.

If, as Sandgaard has suggested, this is an irrelevancy to his purchase, it can only be in my mind because he believes that he believes that there is already a mechanism in place which allows the recovery of the shares in CAFC from ESI by Staprix. Otherwise it would be relevant because to acquire the club because he would have to wait until the November court hearing for the partipants in the appeal to slyg it out as to who owns ESI.

My belief is that either Staprix and their lawyers are nervous about the recovery, i doubt that since they would seek indemnity over their action from the Sandgaard or that the recovery cannot go ahead until they have a buyer who is  entitled to acquire CAFC and operate the football club . That is the decision of the EFL and is currently being witheld, because I am assuming the EFL are hedging their bets against being sued by a Lex Dominus owned ESI..

Therefore in summary the hearing today is not relevant to Sandgaard buying from Staprix, but Staprix will not trigger the approval of the Sandgaard/Staprix  SPA for the club because the EFL have not apprived Sandgaard as an owner and are worried about having to run CCAFC themselves.

Imay be barking up the wrong tree maybe even the wrong wood, but that is the  only logic that I can see.

Spelling mistakes and typos, have you been drinking?

BigDiddy said:

We are so F****d if this goes on.

Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Macclesfield ........I hope we do not follow their fates.

I am disgusted with the Courts, EFL and those thieves in ESI1 and ESI2, not forgetting the douchebag in Belgium who is really behind this shit show.

How can a club be sold for £1 on TWO occasions to scumbags who have never proven funds or any good intent?

Can someone explain that in simple english ?

It is not the fault of the court system that the balanced process they are required to follow is sometimes slow and painful. It is the fault of the legislators and greedy club owners that have allowed the previously complex system of the FA and the FL to become the monied Premier league; the poorer EFL; with an incompetent FA unable to provide governance to either because they either cannot or will not. This structure does not serve football well. The government needs to sit the three parties down and explain to them that unless they come up with a workable structure that provides governance and control as well as finding a sensible financing structure for the pyramid of the 

Scratchingvalleycat

sillav nitram said:

Scratchingvalleycat said:

carly burn said:

orpingtonRED said:

After catching up with this and the takeover thread im more confused than i was 2 weeks ago.
Does todays hearing impact on the takeover or not? 
Anybody able to answer briefly please.

 Possibly, but Sandgaard doesn't think so.

Elliott is seeking an appeal against judge Pearce's decision that he doesn't own ESI.
If his injunction is approved today then a court case to overturn judge Pearce's decision will be heard in November.

That will have an impact on who Sandgaard has to do a deal with. But it is rumoured that Duchatelet has binned both ESI's off and is dealing with Sandgaard directly. So what happens today with both ESI's is irrelevant.
.However, the EFL appear to be holding back on their verdict on Sandgaard leading many to believe that today has some significant relevance.

Elliott is not seeking an appeal against  a decision by Judge Pearce on ownership of ESI. That will be decided by a trial currently to be held in late November. The aappeal today is over Judge Pearce's decision not to prolongue the injunction sought by Lex Dominus over the sale of shares in ESI by panorama magic  to an other be it Sandgaard or Sanda Clause.

If, as Sandgaard has suggested, this is an irrelevancy to his purchase, it can only be in my mind because he believes that he believes that there is already a mechanism in place which allows the recovery of the shares in CAFC from ESI by Staprix. Otherwise it would be relevant because to acquire the club because he would have to wait until the November court hearing for the partipants in the appeal to slyg it out as to who owns ESI.

My belief is that either Staprix and their lawyers are nervous about the recovery, i doubt that since they would seek indemnity over their action from the Sandgaard or that the recovery cannot go ahead until they have a buyer who is  entitled to acquire CAFC and operate the football club . That is the decision of the EFL and is currently being witheld, because I am assuming the EFL are hedging their bets against being sued by a Lex Dominus owned ESI..

Therefore in summary the hearing today is not relevant to Sandgaard buying from Staprix, but Staprix will not trigger the approval of the Sandgaard/Staprix  SPA for the club because the EFL have not apprived Sandgaard as an owner and are worried about having to run CCAFC themselves.

Imay be barking up the wrong tree maybe even the wrong wood, but that is the  only logic that I can see.

Spelling mistakes and typos, have you been drinking?

No but trying to type quickly on a phone before my comment is swamped by 300 other posts.

CL_Phantom

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Is anyone listening in to this today, or is that not possible?

Media allowed in.

Airman listening and tweeting and someone posting updates in here I believe 

Scoham

Richard Cawley will also be tweeting updates.

Stig

2-0 Charlton 

COYA!

RichmondSE10Exile

I can just see it - both screens set to this and the Shenanigans threads; phone set on Cawley tweets and tablet on Airman tweets. That will leave me no room for Sandgaard inputs and the thoughts of Lifers who forget and carry on posting their reactions regardless on the Sandgaard thread.

I know I shouldn’t be worried about the judges determining that Judge Pearce was wrong to come to the judgement he did do. However I can’t hold back the fear of the injunction being allowed to carry over until the trial and what that might do to the EFL’s continued dithering.

At least in 90 minutes something should happen.

COYA

golfaddick

Stig said:

2-0 Charlton 

COYA!

We won the first game 1-0 & then afterwards the ref decided to disallow our goal after having their manager in his room for over an hour debating that the old offside law should still apply and as such our goal should not stand. 

By that time everyone had gone home so a  re-match it is.

carly burn

Another 4 hours of listening to that prick Chaisty.
No thanks!

Good luck to all those that do.

RichmondSE10Exile

carly burn said:

Another 4 hours of listening to that prick Chaisty.
No thanks!

Good luck to all those that do.

We can’t - the press can. So it’s down to updates from Airman and Cawley*. I don’t suppose any other journos are going to bother and will just wait for the outcome.

A big thank you to these two in advance though.

Spitfire76

carly burn said:

Another 4 hours of listening to that prick Chaisty.
No thanks!

Good luck to all those that do.

Let me at him , chastity has never lasted that long around me 😎

Redrobo

golfaddick said:

So, let's get this straight. This is an appeal to overturn Judge Pearce's ruling that an injunction to stop ESI selling its shares to anyone but Paul Elliott is wrong.

The fact that an injunction is a mechanism to stop something happening, and seeing as the original injunction hearing was 16 days ago, makes ruling against an injunction a farce.

Me - "stop - you can't sell that its mine"
Judge "no it's not - sale can proceed"
Me - " I'll appeal then"
Judge " you want to appeal, oh that's a different matter then. Stop the sale"

So, you have a Judge saying you cant stop the sale but appeal that decision & the sale is stopped.


Bonkers. The law is indeed an ass & I'm a banana. 

Not quite right. It is a Hearing to decide if there should be an injunction preventing the sale of EIS Ltd until the Hearing in November.
The Hearing in November will decide if Elliott has the exclusive right to buy.

stoneroses19

mascot88 said:

let's hope the courts do not reward these total f**** who's primary goal is putting a communities heart and soul on the line to flip it and make some cash they don't deserve... 

If they fell dead on the way into the court I'd be delighted

fuck em

Judge Pearce did mention the needs of our local community as a reason for denying the injunction, hopefully the two judges today agree and compliment the original decision. 

stoneroses19

carly burn said:

Another 4 hours of listening to that prick Chaisty.
No thanks!

Good luck to all those that do.

Out of interest, how much would someone in Chaisty’s position expect to have earned from the last 2/3 weeks of hearings? 

ProperCharlton

Are we likely to know the decision today?

CH4RLTON

I cant see this taking as long as the others.

i_b_b_o_r_g

stoneroses19 said:

carly burn said:

Another 4 hours of listening to that prick Chaisty.
No thanks!

Good luck to all those that do.

Out of interest, how much would someone in Chaisty’s position expect to have earned from the last 2/3 weeks of hearings? 

And wack on an additional £30k costs for misusing the court system

Jints

COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION

Before LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and
LORD JUSTICE MALES
Thursday, 17th September, 2020
Not Before half-past 10
APPEAL
TO BE HEARD REMOTELY
From The Chancery Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2020/1465 Lex Dominus Limited -v- Panorama Magic General Contracting LLC. Appeal of Claimant from the order of his honour judge Pearce, dated 1st September 2020, filed 3rd September 2020.

From the cause list. Only two judges rather than the usual three. 

GoOnYouHaddocks

Could one of the posters who understand the law give an indication on how they think this will play out?
Maybe a percentage that it gets denied, or odds for and against or something, because I really haven't got a scooby what's going on

Solidgone

Jints said:

COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION

Before LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and
LORD JUSTICE MALES
Thursday, 17th September, 2020
Not Before half-past 10
APPEAL
TO BE HEARD REMOTELY
From The Chancery Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2020/1465 Lex Dominus Limited -v- Panorama Magic General Contracting LLC. Appeal of Claimant from the order of his honour judge Pearce, dated 1st September 2020, filed 3rd September 2020.

From the cause list. Only two judges rather than the usual three. 

Is this the line up? Any subs?

Jints

GoOnYouHaddocks said:

Could one of the posters who understand the law give an indication on how they think this will play out?
Maybe a percentage that it gets denied, or odds for and against or something, because I really haven't got a scooby what's going on

I looked at this a few days ago. Could only find stats from 2006 which were 40% of appeals were allowed and 60% refused. 

I don't think anyone who has not seen the original decision and the skeleton arguments for each party could give a view as to prospects of success. 

EveshamAddick

Solidgone said:

Jints said:

COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION

Before LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and
LORD JUSTICE MALES
Thursday, 17th September, 2020
Not Before half-past 10
APPEAL
TO BE HEARD REMOTELY
From The Chancery Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2020/1465 Lex Dominus Limited -v- Panorama Magic General Contracting LLC. Appeal of Claimant from the order of his honour judge Pearce, dated 1st September 2020, filed 3rd September 2020.

From the cause list. Only two judges rather than the usual three. 

Is this the line up? Any subs?

Short handed on the bench due to the embargo.

killerandflash

Scoham said:

Richard Cawley will also be tweeting updates.

Also Benjy Nurick

GoOnYouHaddocks

Jints said:

GoOnYouHaddocks said:

Could one of the posters who understand the law give an indication on how they think this will play out?
Maybe a percentage that it gets denied, or odds for and against or something, because I really haven't got a scooby what's going on

I looked at this a few days ago. Could only find stats from 2006 which were 40% of appeals were allowed and 60% refused. 

I don't think anyone who has not seen the original decision and the skeleton arguments for each party could give a view as to prospects of success. 

Thanks, although 40% is a lot higher than I imagined. Not far off a coin flip.

SoundAsa£

GoOnYouHaddocks said:

Could one of the posters who understand the law give an indication on how they think this will play out?
Maybe a percentage that it gets denied, or odds for and against or something, because I really haven't got a scooby what's going on

Just go back over the last 80 odd pages......the answer will be in there somewhere.🤔🤔🤔

Dizzle

Solidgone said:

Jints said:

COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION

Before LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and
LORD JUSTICE MALES
Thursday, 17th September, 2020
Not Before half-past 10
APPEAL
TO BE HEARD REMOTELY
From The Chancery Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2020/1465 Lex Dominus Limited -v- Panorama Magic General Contracting LLC. Appeal of Claimant from the order of his honour judge Pearce, dated 1st September 2020, filed 3rd September 2020.

From the cause list. Only two judges rather than the usual three. 

Is this the line up? Any subs?

No but Trevor Kettle is overseeing proceedings