Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me please
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?
Chaisty's is just going over the obvious point that a cntract has been broken, which I think everyone would have known already. If there ain't anything else in his armoury, reckon LK might do a job here. No?
@CAFCsayer - think this bit is definitely of interest to you:
Chaisty says deal was signed by both parties in May and that Southall's shares would transfer over as part of "drag along". Also says no indications Southall would try to sell his stake - which he can't do legally anyway.
(given Lex Dominus was definitely owned by Farnell at that point)
Good point, how is that not dodgy... Will send across now. Investigating Officer is on leave til 7th, so not expecting to hear much until at least then.
If the contracts were signed in May, then Farnell was acting as lawyer for Nimer, while, at the same time, being a Director of the company to which the shares were scheduled to be sold. I think.
Chaisty doesn't feel judge can make proper call on the case without a deeper dive into it.
Sounds as if they aren't looking to get this concluded today.
If the contracts were signed in May, then Farnell was acting as lawyer for Nimer, while, at the same time, being a Director of the company to which the shares were scheduled to be sold. I think.
If LK has all this, would it be relevant to this case?
Chaisty: the EFL said on Aug 7th that the agreement was not conditional (as Mihail asserts) and that Elliott's application was rejected due to claims he mislead the EFL.
#cafc#SaveCAFC
Chaisty doesn't feel judge can make proper call on the case without a deeper dive into it.
Sounds as if they aren't looking to get this concluded today.
In other words he is arguing that the judge should issue an interim injunction to prevent sale for now and schedule a longer hearing to consider merits properly later this year.
The EFL will obviously play a significant part. They need to do with the Directors test ASAP. It's quite clear if he is rejected then Elliott will have no choice but to feck off.
If defendant is now arguing that there was a requirement for the EFL approval to be in place at completion then Nimer had no business allowing Elliott put money into the club subsequently, says Chaisty.
Chaisty: This is an application for an interim injunction where we say at the very least there is a serious issue with the construction of the agreement
Comments
No dates ever set. Poorly constructed agreement.
Good point, how is that not dodgy... Will send across now. Investigating Officer is on leave til 7th, so not expecting to hear much until at least then.
Nothing to do with us.