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)

1…169171173174175

Comments

  • Lordflashheart
    Lordflashheart Posts: 5,619
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
  • Vfrf
    Vfrf Posts: 797
    Lordflashheart said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
    I don't think two high court judges would grant an injunction if that was the case. The specifics will clearly link to Charlton.
  • Lordflashheart
    Lordflashheart Posts: 5,619
    Vfrf said:
    Lordflashheart said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
    I don't think two high court judges would grant an injunction if that was the case. The specifics will clearly link to Charlton.
    But no mention was made of East Street Investments in the hearing (I think) - they only talked about Lex and Panorama 
  • KINSELLA7
    KINSELLA7 Posts: 83
    Vfrf said:
    Lordflashheart said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
    I don't think two high court judges would grant an injunction if that was the case. The specifics will clearly link to Charlton.
    But you cannot grant an injunction binding a person or company that isn't a party in the proceedings. There may be personal undertakings that have not been published (yet) in detail.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,842
    se9addick said:
    killerandflash said:
    se9addick said:
    I’m really confused - based on the undisputed evidence in court today have we been backing the wrong horse? Surely if Elliott has (somehow) been funding the club financially for the past however long and PM/Nimer/whoever haven’t put a penny in, shouldn’t we want LD to win and then they do a deal with Sandgaard?


    **those are genuine questions btw**
    To an extent I couldn't care less whether Panorama or Lex are our owners, as whoever is the owner will want to sell us to TS anyway

    The problem is the delay their battle is causing. If the main case was next week instead of November, it would be far less of a roadblock
    Oh absolutely - I hope PM & LD both get £0, please don’t misinterpret anything I’ve written as being in support of either (that was my concern before I made that post).
    Don't worry I wasn't

    Indeed I myself pointed out that the case today wasn't CAFC against LD, it was PM vs LD, and definitely not goodies vs baddies.

    Especially when you look at what MS (ESI 1) took from the club, 
  • sillav nitram
    sillav nitram Posts: 10,163
    Lordflashheart said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
    It's like the question that always comes up on QI: Nobody Knows!
  • Vfrf
    Vfrf Posts: 797
    KINSELLA7 said:
    Vfrf said:
    Lordflashheart said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
    I don't think two high court judges would grant an injunction if that was the case. The specifics will clearly link to Charlton.
    But you cannot grant an injunction binding a person or company that isn't a party in the proceedings. There may be personal undertakings that have not been published (yet) in detail.
    I assume you can, if the majority shareholder is the individual in court.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
    Richard J said:
    Covered End said:
    The best legal team won. Anyone still think it makes no difference?
    It does if your evidence is wrong & half of it wasn't produced. 
    My point on the first hearing was based on Baristers (Advocates).The fact she won on the day was remarkable given the lack of evidence and heavyweight opponent

    What clearly happened was that PM didn't submit all of the evidence that they had. The Judge seemed to imply if they had then it would have been a different verdict. 
    Precisely my friend. 
    The better legal team won. 
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
    Athletico Charlton said:
    Covered End said:
    The best legal team won. Anyone still think it makes no difference?
    It does if your evidence is wrong & half of it wasn't produced. 
    Not sure it was best legal team.  That starts to blame LK which I am very uncomfortable with.  MM and TN are to blame for no statements /evidence and what was given having inaccuracies.  A QC can only play the cards they are dealt.
    I agree, not blaming Lauren. 
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,034
    edited September 2020
    Covered End said:
    Richard J said:
    Covered End said:
    The best legal team won. Anyone still think it makes no difference?
    It does if your evidence is wrong & half of it wasn't produced. 
    My point on the first hearing was based on Baristers (Advocates).The fact she won on the day was remarkable given the lack of evidence and heavyweight opponent

    What clearly happened was that PM didn't submit all of the evidence that they had. The Judge seemed to imply if they had then it would have been a different verdict. 
    Precisely my friend. 
    The better legal team won. 
    I think the better resourced legal team won. LK can only argue with what she’s provided with which wasn’t much. LD on the other hand armed their team with proper arguments and evidence that we didn’t/couldn’t rebuke.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,347
    Who were the solicitors who prepared the brief for LK? Or did Marian do it himself
  • CAFCsayer
    CAFCsayer Posts: 10,223
    Still convinced there's something going on in the background here
  • KINSELLA7
    KINSELLA7 Posts: 83
    Vfrf said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    Vfrf said:
    Lordflashheart said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
    I don't think two high court judges would grant an injunction if that was the case. The specifics will clearly link to Charlton.
    But you cannot grant an injunction binding a person or company that isn't a party in the proceedings. There may be personal undertakings that have not been published (yet) in detail.
    I assume you can, if the majority shareholder is the individual in court.
    By individual I presume that you mean in this case, company. Yes, Panorama are the major shareholder in East Street, but supposing they were also the major shareholder in another 4 companies,  Surely the court could not order an injunction binding all of those companies?
  • Leeds_Addick
    Leeds_Addick Posts: 4,698
    CAFCsayer said:
    Still convinced there's something going on in the background here
    What gives you that impression?
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    Chunes said:
    Who were the solicitors who prepared the brief for LK? Or did Marian do it himself
    That's the suggestion, if they left it to the office boy what do they expect. 


  • Vfrf
    Vfrf Posts: 797
    KINSELLA7 said:
    Vfrf said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    Vfrf said:
    Lordflashheart said:
    KINSELLA7 said:
    I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen). 
    If that’s true, then what are we all worrying about

    Can anyone confirm this ?
    I don't think two high court judges would grant an injunction if that was the case. The specifics will clearly link to Charlton.
    But you cannot grant an injunction binding a person or company that isn't a party in the proceedings. There may be personal undertakings that have not been published (yet) in detail.
    I assume you can, if the majority shareholder is the individual in court.
    By individual I presume that you mean in this case, company. Yes, Panorama are the major shareholder in East Street, but supposing they were also the major shareholder in another 4 companies,  Surely the court could not order an injunction binding all of those companies?
    Depends if the application had an SPA to buy the other three.
  • Vfrf
    Vfrf Posts: 797
    CAFCsayer said:
    Still convinced there's something going on in the background here
    I was and have always been optimistic. I changed today for this reason:
    All of the ITK posts here have come from Sandgaard by first or second connection. Four seperate people don't fabricate a deal being with ESI 'just waiting for approval' or that the court case has no baring. And then comes out with a SLP interview saying how he wont deal with ESI2, has the best minds on it. He has misled all those people with blind optimism. I'm smart enough to not tweet this to him as he still remains our only chance - but I really have lost alot of faith in Sandgaard conducting a deal.
  • I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY
    I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY Posts: 4,608
    Was MM/Panobrasic trying to blindside the court by not saying anything about Sandgaard's takeover efforts?
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,034
    bobmunro said:
    Time for the ex-directors to now take action - my understanding is that they might be able to overturn the original sale to ESI1 on the basis they were not consulted?
    I think @Airman Brown had previously said that the more likely outcome was that RD would have to pay them out rather than the deal being reversed.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
    se9addick said:
    Covered End said:
    Richard J said:
    Covered End said:
    The best legal team won. Anyone still think it makes no difference?
    It does if your evidence is wrong & half of it wasn't produced. 
    My point on the first hearing was based on Baristers (Advocates).The fact she won on the day was remarkable given the lack of evidence and heavyweight opponent

    What clearly happened was that PM didn't submit all of the evidence that they had. The Judge seemed to imply if they had then it would have been a different verdict. 
    Precisely my friend. 
    The better legal team won. 
    I think the better resourced legal team won. LK can only argue with what she’s provided with which wasn’t much. LD on the other hand armed their team with proper arguments and evidence that we didn’t/couldn’t rebuke.
    Agreed. 
  • ElliotCAFC
    ElliotCAFC Posts: 2,552
    bobmunro said:
    Time for the ex-directors to now take action - my understanding is that they might be able to overturn the original sale to ESI1 on the basis they were not consulted?
    If they could do that they would have by now. That process will take months in the courts. 
  • Vfrf
    Vfrf Posts: 797
    The clutching at straws tells me that Sandgaard 'not being close' in court when he's directly said otherwise, the lack of defence from Panorama Magic, the confidence prior to today from Thomas all must serve a purpose. Surely nobody can be this woefully unprepared for the court case.
    I won't be on the list as I have no inside info, but if the idea is to buy Staprix, aquire the assets, and call in debt - maybe he has to distance himself from a traditional sale so the court can't easily unpick it. If his endgame is to persue the line that ESI can't fund their liabilities, then weakening their position would make sense.
    Could you just put a laugh on this post so I lose all confidence to post again please?
  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    edited September 2020
    Davo55 said:
    I'm a few pages back so it might have already been said, but:

    1) FFS people, don't start having a pop at Thomas Sandgaard because the English legal system came down on the side of one set of crooks over the other. He's doing everything he can to take over our club and he still looks like by far the best, if not the only, option we've got. He's made some bold statements and now we'll see if they were reality or posturing. But give the guy some space.

    2) No point at all in having a dig at NLA or any other fans. It's no more their fault that ESI1 are useless pricks than it's TS's.

    Reserve your anger for the despicable arseholes in both ESI camps and in the terminally incompetent and toothless EFL.
    You might have slightly got the wrong end of the stick Davo. No one’s having a dig at NLA apart from questioning why he is digging out other fans. You’d think that a defeat in court like this would bring people together, but instead it’s divisive point scoring and scapegoating time for a section of the fanbase. 
    That sort of thing does nobody any favours. 
  • CH4RLTON
    CH4RLTON Posts: 2,618
    We really need to apply some pressure back on to the c**ts!
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,458
    bobmunro said:
    Time for the ex-directors to now take action - my understanding is that they might be able to overturn the original sale to ESI1 on the basis they were not consulted?
     Think that ship has sailed Bob.

    In part because Murray wouldn't get involved.
  • The Prince-e-Paul
    The Prince-e-Paul Posts: 6,688
    edited September 2020
    We all love Charlton.

    We all hate the crooks that are threatening our loved one. FACT

    Let the anger and resentment towards our oppressor(s) begin!
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,276
    Vfrf said:
    The clutching at straws tells me that Sandgaard 'not being close' in court when he's directly said otherwise, the lack of defence from Panorama Magic, the confidence prior to today from Thomas all must serve a purpose. Surely nobody can be this woefully unprepared for the court case.
    I won't be on the list as I have no inside info, but if the idea is to buy Staprix, aquire the assets, and call in debt - maybe he has to distance himself from a traditional sale so the court can't easily unpick it. If his endgame is to persue the line that ESI can't fund their liabilities, then weakening their position would make sense.
    Could you just put a laugh on this post so I lose all confidence to post again please?
    Your wish is my command...

    (My sarcasm detector is on the blink today, so can remove the LOL if that wasn't actually your wish)
  • kigelia
    kigelia Posts: 2,582
    I do wonder what happens to the injunction in the event of administration? 
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,301
    kigelia said:
    I do wonder what happens to the injunction in the event of administration? 
    We get a 30-pt deduction from the EFL for the hell of it
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”