B-more Mag

Then I don't have any confidence his sources have an understanding that's anything more than superficial.

The fact that he starts out taking about "separate" and "different" and doesn't give any reason why the definitions of "director" and "control" would or wouldn't wrap in the KSA is a pretty clear indication that his understanding is superficial at best. That's not to say he may not ultimately turn out to be right -- but that would be more down to happenstance than him actually knowing how the legal analysis by the arbitrators is likely to turn out. (To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest I do, either. )

Reminds me of when there was "talk" of Deco coming.

The issue is that if the KSA is a "director" due to "control" of the PIF, then the KSA must submit a declaration that certain facts about it are true. There's no publicly available definitive evidence that I'm aware of, but speculation is that the KSA has not supplied, and would not supply, such a declaration (one would guess most sovereign nations wouldn't agree to do so). (Actually, if the KSA had given the declaration, it would be an admission that it's a director-- so that's pretty conclusive that it hasn't done so.) Without that declaration, the EPL's rules allow it to say the KSA is disqualified as a director, which effectively prevents the deal as currently structured.

We don't get to see real time filings, unfortunately. (Actually, we haven't been able to see the parties' filings at all, real time or not, and have only been able to hear what's going on after the fact, when the Registrar published a summary of the claim and the CAT President entered orders. There should be greater transparency when it comes to the hearing, which I believe we'll be able to stream, whenever it happens.)

Slightly different than this. EPL has already filed its primary evidence why the CAT doesn't have jurisdiction. What the EPL would be filing today is its reply to St James' Holdings' responsive evidence. (The way these things work is the moving party files, the opponent files a response, then the moving party has the chance to reply to things the opposing party brought up in the response -- that's the point this is at.) So if EPL doesn't file anything today, it would look really, really bad, since they requested and got an extension, but doesn't automatically mean the CAT case would go forward.

Tough for those kids, man.

Oh fuck.

Nice clothesline there.

#TatBeNewer

If anybody says the arbitration issue is "is PIF separate from KSA" in this new thread, I'm going to fucking explode.

Congratulations, and good luck! I fucking wish one of my goddamned teams would win something, or even come close.

Okay. You all must have a much more expansive right of appeal of arbitration awards than we do, if they're effectively freely appealable and regularly overturned. Neither here nor there, but that undercuts one of the main purposes of arbitration.

Yeah, "final and non-appealable" was my shorthand for arbitration generally being binding. The EPL rules do lay out a list of circumstances in which appeal can be taken Rule X.5), including decisions contrary to English law, and it is expressly subject to the arbitration act. It's still pretty limited (e.g., determinations of fact are generally going to stand).

Re: 2), the arbitration is final and non-appealable, per PL rules. I don't know U.K. law on this, but if it were in the U.S. there would be very limited circumstances in which a court could overturn an arbitration award that's purportedly final and non-appealable, but it takes extraordinary circumstances.

The 28th was when Ashley's company responded to the PL's jurisdiction application. The PL's subsequent reply to that was originally due today, but it has now been extended to the 12 (a seven day extention).

St James Holdings is claimant PL is defendant

PL filed its application on the 11th. St James Holdings filed its response to the PL's application on the 28th. PL has received an extension of time to reply to St James Holdings' response.

Notwithstanding that the PL should probably be closely regulated as a quasi-monopoly, I can't imagine there's any basis for the government to intervene with respect to what appears to be an enforceable arbitration provision.

Extremely normal in here again today, I see.

Dear God this is fucking boring.

Right? I got to up my hourly rate, like.

Updates?! I thought this was the general bitchiness thread.

Not yet (at least not on the CAT website yet).

The article is poorly written (Ryder, no surprise). But presumably the PL offered arbitration over the issue of whether KSA is a director. The PL presumably takes the position that saying KSA is a director is not tantamount to rejecting the takeover -- it just means KSA has to submit a declaration about the officers and directors test factors and otherwise pass the test. (Though we all know that in effect this is pretty much the same as blocking the takeover because it's highly unlikely a sovereign state would subject itself to that.)