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
-
£12 sounds about right.Covered End said:17 -
LJ Lewison talking about OADT.0
-
Must have forgotten the "."Scoham said:
£12 sounds about right.Covered End said:0 -
What does that mean?0
-
Probably closer to the true figure.i_b_b_o_r_g said:PM has agreed to sell its shares in ESI to LD, he says. Elliott sole shareholder in LD. Says he has sufficient means up to £12. Parties in dispute as to whether SPA is extant. PM says it has been terminated or is incapable of performance.2 -
Just walking through the case at the momentmascot88 said:What does that mean?1 -
Thanks:)0
- Sponsored links:
-
“It has been brought to the court’s attention that...”i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison talking about OADT.
I wish.3 -
LJ Lewison says SPA provides that the buyer shall deliver to the seller written confirmation that the EFL does not consider any relevant person to be subject to a disqualifying condition and is satisfied by future financial provisions.0
-
But Elliott hasnt achieved that...3
-
So so nervous now. About time we get the luck go our wayb1
-
Boom.1
-
Principal contention is whether SPA is conditional or whether as EFL decided it was unconditional. EFL decided that by paying money in Elliott acted as a relevant person and required the club to remove him as such.0
-
The thing that's worrying me is that Pearce started all positive for LD, and then denied the injunction, and now Lewison is starting positive for PM...
14 - Sponsored links:
-
But is there a time limit? I suppose Chaisty has been arguing that he still could.ForeverAddickted said:But Elliott hasnt achieved that...0 -
Yeah this fact isnt lost on me either... Been thinking the samealiwibble said:The thing that's worrying me is that Pearce started all positive for LD, and then denied the injunction, and now Lewison is starting positive for PM...1 -
I think LD are gonna get the injunction.0
-
LJ Lewison: where there is doubt as to the adequacy of remedy of damages that balance of convenience arises. Course should take whatever course seems like to take the least irremediable prejudice.1
-
I've no idea whether that's a good or bad thing as far as this case goesCovered End said:1 -
Covered End said:Boom.
Just sounds better than FFS.1 -
ForeverAddickted said:
Yeah this fact isnt lost on me either... Been thinking the samealiwibble said:The thing that's worrying me is that Pearce started all positive for LD, and then denied the injunction, and now Lewison is starting positive for PM...
but if they always did it this way that would be odd
0
This discussion has been closed.
