Search results

To take a charge on the assets probably and ease of administration. Equity requires admin and legals. Loan much simpler.

Never said it was not relevant. I said it was difficult to draw conclusions from it. And it was.

I spoke to multiple sources on APT in addition to reading Panja’s tweet. Whilst it is important to weigh the personal feelings of the tweeters, it is worth considering what he writes about a topic like this because he undoubtedly has some good sources. As I said, in any event, the quote...

Did you actually read what I said? It says “if”. And like it or not Panja gets told things by people in the room.

Explained better than me!

Nothing has changed from my side. So he summarises well from a completely one sided standpoint. In litigation you often receive correspondence or written submissions that paint a completely one sided reading of the evidence. To a reader who doesn’t know what happened such documents sound...

It’s the same stuff with his absolute confidence of outcome

I know I know. I was intrigued. And open minded.

I listened to all of the podcast inc the Patreon bit. I thought he articulated the bear case well but with far too much certainty around his key themes and the outcome. Plus there is a lot of naivety. The stuff about sanctions (forced sale stuff) and 5 November in particular is extremely...

Coming to this late, is there some video or audio commentary that is worth a listen to?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it is impossible that a 3 person panel on a 10-12 week trial with a fair bit of complexity outside of their individual skillsets could need some time to deliberate and debate the weight of some of the evidence. And this also assumes a unanimity of view which is...

Maybe but I doubt it

You need to separate the impressions and conclusions of the panel in their heads and between themselves from the decision and formal written conclusions. The decision will 100% be reserved (ie not handed down at the end of the hearing) and the panel will not want to give the impression they have...

I foresee 2 stages. Had City won in full I’d envisaged a deletion of the offending clauses as they would have been unlawful. Then a process to vote on new lawful clauses in line with the decision. So no contradiction.

It won’t work that way. The SOL decisions require all evidence to be heard

Not at all. They heard the evidence on Etisalat. They won’t be confirming any decision during the hearing

Moreover any judgment will be reserved. They won’t be making any decisions during the hearing.

Times reporting it too. And other sauces.

The point is the 24/25 rule only serves to highlight the differences between now and then.

Doubt it