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)
Comments
-
Horsfield9 said:Where's ross1 when you need him ?3
-
Seems a lot of irrelevant comments in court when it all boils down to what the contract between ESI and PE says, a contract none of us have seen2
-
aliwibble said:Sage said:aliwibble said:ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.0
-
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?3
-
We're getting into some very detailed legal chat over the "construction" of the agreement0
-
Cafc43v3r said:flyingkiwiDK said:
What is going on? Can someone summarise please so I don't have to read the previous 17 pages of this thread
1 -
Mihail said deal was on certain conditions.
No dates ever set. Poorly constructed agreement.0 -
aliwibble said:@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.
10 -
Chizz said: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.0
-
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.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
NO way Elliotttt loses this unfortunately2
-
carly burn said:Mihail said deal was on certain conditions.
No dates ever set. Poorly constructed agreement.0 -
So we want this answered and dealt with quickly, yet dont want this answered and dealt with quickly!!3
-
Finally got in 10 minutes ago. Don't understand any of it.1
-
Is there a fat lad warming up to do the crossbar challenge?1
-
Chizz said: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.0
-
Wants to wait for appeal to EFL to reach its conclusion.1
-
-
They've got us tied in knots.2
-
ForeverAddickted said: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.2
- Sponsored links:
-
Weegie Addick said:They've got us tied in knots.
Nothing to do with us.8 -
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.2
-
On the basis of what I've heard so far, Tahnoon is a total twat(if there were any doubt about that)6
-
Doesn’t sound like it’s going well0
-
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.
0 -
carly burn said:Weegie Addick said:They've got us tied in knots.
Nothing to do with us.1 -
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 agreement0
-
FUCK OFF ELLIOTT5
-
Only heard one side of it4
-
Judge has just put a black cap on top of his wig what does this mean?.18
This discussion has been closed.