Texas court halts sale of Dippers

JoeMercer'sWay said:
mancmackem said:
If a future marriage goes tits up, CB is my first call so she doesn't leave me as 'Man from Primark'!

-- Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:49 pm --



The company that owns Liverpool is based in Texas, from what i understand reading through all of this.

This is why the US court had some jurisdiction to do this.

so how can london overrule texas?
It hasn't.

It's said that if Hicks doesn't withdraw the Texas injunction, then he will be held in contempt of court.

It's not over-ruling as such.
 
JoeMercer'sWay said:
so how can london overrule texas?

They haven't overruled as such, it is a ruling forcing H&G to follow the initial ruling or face personal penalties (fine or prison), not the asset. So the stakes have been raised basically as they could feel more personal penalties than losing £100m+.

CB is probably better to comment, but that is how i understood his explanation.
 
JoeMercer'sWay said:
but how can it be under the jurisdiction of both texas and london? surely it should be 1 or the other? so who's right here? london or texas?

The money is with RBS, which is a U.K company so that is why initially the U.K legal process occured.

But H&G pulled a surprise move through the injunction as the company that owns Liverpool is based in Texas. The company is owned by themselves, and they felt the asset was being sold from underneath their feet at too low a price.

Thus, leading to where we are now.
 
from a US legal chap, don't worry about the link reference.

The link you show refers to the district court's jurisdiction as between itself and other domestic courts. The complex rules that govern whether the Dallas court should have seised itself of jurisdiction is covered by private international law. The Dallas court granted its TRO in an ex parte hearing – which means Liverpool didn't have a chance to put their case forward. If they were there, Liverpool would have argued that Dallas should decline jurisdiction or stay its action on the grounds on forum non conveniens, that is, the English Court was much more suitable than the Dallas court and had, in any case, been first seised of the proceedings. Sorry for the latin, they still use it sometimes in law.

seised= take control
 
mancmackem said:
JoeMercer'sWay said:
so how can london overrule texas?

They haven't overruled as such, it is a ruling forcing H&G to follow the initial ruling or face personal penalties (fine or prison), not the asset. So the stakes have been raised basically as they could feel more personal penalties than losing £100m+.

CB is probably better to comment, but that is how i understood his explanation.

Spot on...

P.S. I'm taken... sorry to disappoint.
 
mancmackem said:
JoeMercer'sWay said:
but how can it be under the jurisdiction of both texas and london? surely it should be 1 or the other? so who's right here? london or texas?

The money is with RBS, which is a U.K company so that is why initially the U.K legal process occured.

But H&G pulled a surprise move through the injunction as the company that owns Liverpool is based in Texas. The company is owned by themselves, and they felt the asset was being sold from underneath their feet at too low a price.

Thus, leading to where we are now.

so should they have a joint-hearing on the Queen Mary whilst it's on its voyage between Southampton and New York? A sort of 50/50?
 
Wasn't it great watching the news footage of those people being rescued? Watching the smiles on their grubby little faces and the faint glimmers of hope that they may be safe.



Still hope Everton stuff them on Sunday though...
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.