Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Because Ashley is using SJHL to skip past arbitration and go straight to CAT. 

 

He's trying to argue that they have to be a controlling party even though they are not a named director, feels like a feeble argument, by rule of law surely it should only be counted as a controlling party if it is written into the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon
Just now, McCormick said:

Reading through this thread, it’s seems as though it’s not looking particularly promising.

 

Not at all. We haven't even spoken yet, so don't take anything from it so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, McCormick said:

Reading through this thread, it’s seems as though it’s not looking particularly promising.

The usual naysayers have already written it off but in reality we’ve heard one side of the argument (repeatedly) so I guess we’ll see how our part goes

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...