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
-
LK says that no evidence that LD's interest is anything more than securing the proceeds of a sale from ESI. LJ Males says LD would be shooting in the dark, a freezing order is "a very uncertain weapon".0
-
Can't she tell the judge and the opposition privately?stoneroses19 said:
Surely a judge can understand this. Kreamer can’t just come out with what TS has offered in a court hearing that is being broadcasted all over Twitter.Covered End said:0 -
Its the outcome that should have been decided all alongkillerandflash said:TS pays Panorama £X for the club. Deposits it in a separate frozen account. Panorama and Lex can fight for it in November
That would seem a sensible outcome...
Trouble is do LD agree to it, or will they want to be in control of the takeover so they can ask for more money0 -
It won't be.WSS said:
That should be that.Covered End said:2 -
Not that I understand much of the lingo here but my feel is these judges seem to showing more favour to LD's side of the argument.2
-
What does this mean...? Good or bad for us ?i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Males says that court has no idea what current circumstances are, so would struggle to know if there had been changes if there was an application to vary a conditional injunction that it granted today.0 -
LK says PM have been responding to appeal, so court not entitled to assume negative connotations from freezing proceeds not being offered, as they won in lower court.0
-
Twice now the judges have suggested the resolution of freezing sales proceeds in order to protect LD from any loses. That seems to be their thinking. LD's case is built around monetary compensation not being adequate as PM will simply vanish. If the sale proceeds are frozen then their case loses it's main pillar.2
-
The only risk being the granting of a further injunction until the arrangements are in place?killerandflash said:TS pays Panorama £X for the club. Deposits it in a separate frozen account. Panorama and Lex can fight for it in November
That would seem a sensible outcome...
0 - Sponsored links:
-
LK says there is no evidence that LD is good for the damages. Has no assets. Chaisty said was dependent on support of PE. LK: no evidence of Elliott's means, assertion he has a net worth of £12m.0
-
Is there not a danger of TS paying £1 for the club?killerandflash said:TS pays Panorama £X for the club. Deposits it in a separate frozen account. Panorama and Lex can fight for it in November
That would seem a sensible outcome...
I'd like to think so but LD probably thinks so as well.0 -
KentishAddick said:I genuinely don't understand why PM didn't put forward a statement from either MM or TS saying they're in negotiations and a deal is close/agreed. The confidentiality argument is bs as the statement wouldn't have to go into detail about the deal.
Because in the first case, Charlton going out of business was the thought that Lk and MM were trying to get across to Judge Pearce.
Now the tactics have changed and a different formation is being used.
Think Plan A and Plan B.
I do agree with you KA, about the delay would Jeopardize a bona fide bid.0 -
As they do not know the state of play with the sale as of today, they can't rule on a conditional conjunction that could be lifted if condition x,y or z were metgolfaddick said:
What does this mean...? Good or bad for us ?i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Males says that court has no idea what current circumstances are, so would struggle to know if there had been changes if there was an application to vary a conditional injunction that it granted today.0 -
0
-
LJ Lewison: no challenge to evidence that £500 has been put into the club. LK says no evidence it come from PE. Could have put evidence before the court about the provenance of those sums and hasn't.3
-
I have no clue what is going on. Does this mean that if a sale happens, nimer cant touch the money until after a trial? TS buys the club and nimer and elliot fight it out for that money in court? I would be happy with thati_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison asks if PM is prepared to freeze proceeds of sale to protect interests of LD at trial. LK says options are open for LD to apply for that.6 - Sponsored links:
-
The counter would be that the purchase price would have been negotiaed by PM not LD.randy andy said:Twice now the judges have suggested the resolution of freezing sales proceeds in order to protect LD from any loses. That seems to be their thinking. LD's case is built around monetary compensation not being adequate as PM will simply vanish. If the sale proceeds are frozen then their case loses it's main pillar.0 -
LK: Elliott has described himself as part of a consortium, but we don't know who that involves or what they are worth as no evidence provided. LJ Males reminds court offered £50k guarantee so asks if there is any evidence that is inadequate re damages to PM.1
-
To be fair, Panorama are no more trustworthy than Lex, I wouldn't trust Nimer to pay over any damages if he lost the case in November!randy andy said:Twice now the judges have suggested the resolution of freezing sales proceeds in order to protect LD from any loses. That seems to be their thinking. LD's case is built around monetary compensation not being adequate as PM will simply vanish. If the sale proceeds are frozen then their case loses it's main pillar.5 -
The counter to that was that PE agreed to pay PM £1, therefore they have already valued the shares at £1. If PM sells for £1 or more than LD can't complain about the asset being undersoldJints said:
The counter would be that the purchase price would have been negotiaed by PM not LD.randy andy said:Twice now the judges have suggested the resolution of freezing sales proceeds in order to protect LD from any loses. That seems to be their thinking. LD's case is built around monetary compensation not being adequate as PM will simply vanish. If the sale proceeds are frozen then their case loses it's main pillar.1 -
LK quoting Gallen on TV revenue, cites £250k in Championship. Accepts is sparse evidence. Says even on that basis it's clear that £50k is unlikely to be sufficient.1
-
LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.1
-
One question I would ask (not sure it's been asked already). LD is wholly owned by Elliott who is seeking the injunction but he has also stated he is part of a consortium buying the club.
So if a consortium are buying the club, why aren't this consortium all directors of LD? Surely any injunction would be for members of said consortium, not just one?1
This discussion has been closed.
