Jump to content

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition


Jinky Jim

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Again, making excuses for the PL, why would a balanced independent journalist feel the need to do that?

 

What he is saying makes no sense. There is no "who to test part", if someone hasn't been disclosed it's clear that the PL has to disqualify the disclosed directors immediately as they are liable to be disqualified under F.1.1.1. They can then either disclose again including the people the PL want or appeal under F.13.

 

F.6. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore,


Aye, think he ties himself in knots at times. Stand to be corrected, but I can’t even see anywhere that allows the PL to make a provisional determination on who should be tested ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, reefatoon said:


Because Ben the fuckwit Jacobs said so, he even said it in his eloquent voice to fool the befuddled into thinking he knows what he is talking about.


Exactly this. Eloquence does not equate to intelligence or insight. 
 

See Jenas, Simon Jordan and people like George Galloway for examples of this.

 

They just usually have a gift for speaking that makes them sound confident and as if their point is valid. It usually isn’t. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Whitley mag said:


Aye, think he ties himself in knots at times. Stand to be corrected, but I can’t even see anywhere that allows the PL to make a provisional determination on who should be tested ?


That is what is at the heart of the arbitration case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This is old news Joey, gdm beat you to the punch earlier. Welcome aboard though choo choo, I won’t tell Fanny if you don’t.

He needs to learn to post it in the correct thread still. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

He needs to learn to post it in the correct thread still. 

It’s in a suitable thread. In reply to someone mentioning twitter rumours of the nice meeting 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/people/126949 This is Paul

 

Paul Stothard is a dispute resolution lawyer based in Dubai. He has particular experience of international arbitration and advises clients on international disputes involving construction, energy and infrastructure, financial institutions, international trade, retail, hospitality, sports and media.

Paul has experience of both commercial and investment disputes, and has acted for both investors and states. In addition to his work in international arbitration, he also has wide-ranging experience in international fraud litigation, and has led internal investigations into corruption and fraud.

 

He's spoken about the takeover before, I'll share a few posts he's made in the past. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Inclined to agree. Assume nothing's significant and if it turns out to be useful (perhaps this is according to other responses, including one saying Nick de Marco "knows his onions" (though he'd rather it be bread)) then great 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was done in January then why has it only made it out now? Apologies if that's been answered already.

 

My other question is did this make its way to the PA via one of the sides and if so, which side and why?

 

 

Edited by Thumbheed

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can answer the first, curious timing. Look forward to hearing more in the coming weeks if more comes out. As for the second, Ashley's side but we don't know why either. Yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, nbthree3 said:

I don't think anyone can answer the first, curious timing. Look forward to hearing more in the coming weeks if more comes out. As for the second, Ashley's side but we don't know why either. Yet. 

If it was Ashley, why sit on it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could well be, although I'd have thought the Saudi's would be aware of this, surely?

 

Interestingly the SAIP have just released a statement on their latest drive to protect IP.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Thumbheed

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

If this was done in January then why has it only made it out now? Apologies if that's been answered already.

 

My other question is did this make its way to the PA via one of the sides and if so, which side and why?

That's not strictly the way it works - there’s a call for evidence in January for the report, then once all the information is gathered, the report is published in April.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kamakazeee said:

That's not strictly the way it works - there’s a call for evidence in January for the report, then once all the information is gathered, the report is published in April.

 

Interesting. Where have to seen this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...