Pearce acknowledged that consequences might have been overstated, but has to be at least some risk that what Mihail says is correct, says Chaisty. So what? Lewison intervenes to say this finding is about damages, not balance of convenience.
Chaisty says Pearce has unreasonably included some risk of consequences to third party (CAFC) and balanced that against interests of applicant, which is not the course likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice.
LJ Lewison making clear that EFL embargo is down to ESI not passing the governing body's criteria.
Chaisty - source and sufficiency of funding for PE has not been dealt with yet.
"Mr Gallen is confusing my client with ESI when he says they've had seven months to provide EFL."
he has a point there imo
PE claims to have bought the club at the start of June, we're now in mid-September. I don't see how that doesn't qualify as several months. To claim Gallen is confused when PE has had over 3 months to pass tests that TS has passed in less than 1 is ridiculous.
I'm hoping the judges are seeing through the delaying plans. They've already suggested freezing an sales revenue to protect LD and Chaisty's answer was far from convincing, more of a "but but but but" than a solid argument against freezing sale proceeds.
Chaisty says that unless no deal with a third party is struck between now and November, LD will be pursuing completely empty vehicle. Suggests Panorama wouldn't even participate in the speedy trial. Has no interest in defending it.
I don’t understand what this means?
Unless an injunction is granted stopping a sale, Lex Dominus will be suing Panorama who will effectively have no assets, and so won't even bother attending the trial.
This has always seemed to be to be the cornerstone of their argument
Chaisty: over-emphasis on seriousness of consequences, not to Panorama but to the club, but no evidence as to the likelihood of those consequences coming about.
I hope Kreamer has a quote from Bowyer.....
" if a sale doesn't go ahead & the embargo lifted by the start of October then the team will not be strong enough to stay up.....and I'll be leaving"
Chaisty: Even if there equality of harm, Judge Pearce did not consider the status quo properly. Hasn't been a sale of shares, asking for an injunction, happy to have a speedy trial and strength of claim was not considered at all in the balance of convenience.
“ Chaisty says Pearce has unreasonably included some risk of consequences to third party (CAFC) and balanced that against interests of applicant, which is not the course likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice.”
Right, but if CAFC is not relevant than it shouldn’t matter about a sale of the club going through. If their only interest is in PM, then they’re interested in buying the shell regardless. Or intending to indulge damaging the thing they’re trying to buy. Which makes it very clear they’re not interested in running the club (the argument they made in court case 1) but in selling it. This was why they didn’t accept solutions proposed in earlier case about money being put aside.
I understand Chaisty is with LD, but I find it concerning all of his comments are about what’s good for LD only, there’s never any mention of what’s good for the club.
I hope this is where he’s slipped up, and todays judges will see the bigger picture. This is about saving a community asset, but keeping a company like LD afloat in the future.
Chaisty says that unless no deal with a third party is struck between now and November, LD will be pursuing completely empty vehicle. Suggests Panorama wouldn't even participate in the speedy trial. Has no interest in defending it.
I don’t understand what this means?
Unless an injunction is granted stopping a sale, Lex Dominus will be suing Panorama who will effectively have no assets, and so won't even bother attending the trial.
This has always seemed to be to be the cornerstone of their argument
Chaisty notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.
That's the case in a nutshell.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
Chaisty says that unless no deal with a third party is struck between now and November, LD will be pursuing completely empty vehicle. Suggests Panorama wouldn't even participate in the speedy trial. Has no interest in defending it.
I don’t understand what this means?
Unless an injunction is granted stopping a sale, Lex Dominus will be suing Panorama who will effectively have no assets, and so won't even bother attending the trial.
This has always seemed to be to be the cornerstone of their argument
I understand Chaisty is with LD, but I find it concerning all of his comments are about what’s good for LD only, there’s never any mention of what’s good for the club.
I hope this is where he’s slipped up, and todays judges will see the bigger picture. This is about saving a community asset, but keeping a company like LD afloat in the future.
I see where you are coming from but, unfortunately, this is a corporate law case for the judges to rule over. I don't think community comes into it, unfortunately for us.
Pearce did not take account of £500k put in by Elliott in June, says Chaisty. Ruling outside reasonable disagreement, factors including fate of #CAFC given unreasonable weight, failure to consider absence of evidence on key points from Mihail.
Comments
Ooh, that sounds positive for us: 1-2 now?
I'm hoping the judges are seeing through the delaying plans. They've already suggested freezing an sales revenue to protect LD and Chaisty's answer was far from convincing, more of a "but but but but" than a solid argument against freezing sale proceeds.
" if a sale doesn't go ahead & the embargo lifted by the start of October then the team will not be strong enough to stay up.....and I'll be leaving"
You lying bastard!
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
I see where you are coming from but, unfortunately, this is a corporate law case for the judges to rule over. I don't think community comes into it, unfortunately for us.
Because then he'll find out what real vengeance is. So will the EFL.