RE: Mourant v. Nicandros6 Oct 2020 15:09
Thanks SR - received and read. I can certainly see where you're getting your p.o.v. from, as no-one in their right mind would continue working without payment (save FRR employees of course!), but I do have a niggle - the phrase in brackets in this paragraph -
By February 2019, the Plaintiff was not prepared to continue to act for FRC and FIC in the Proceedings without payment (or some other comfort being provided). Following offers of security pending payment, which were unacceptable to the Plaintiff, the Defendants agreed to provide personal guarantees to the Plaintiff (the Personal Guarantees). By a deed of guarantee and indemnity dated 19 February 2019 (the Deed), the First and Second Defendants (together the Guarantors) gave the Plaintiff joint and several guarantees in relation to, inter rilia, all monies, debts and liabilities of any nature from time-to-time due, owing or incurred by FRC to the Plaintiff. A copy of the executed Deed is produced.
'Some form of comfort' - is a bit odd and makes me wonder what else they would have considered.
Aside from that, NJames' post today could be seen as a tit for tat response when you read the two things together .... If Mourant weren't delivering what they promised, in a way they promised and what Frontera claim was in fact true, then they wouldn't pay the bill, and of course, if they weren't paying the bill then Mourant would turn on them and refuse to represent them. A bit of a chicken and egg situation and one we cannot be clear on on either side from where I stand, as we don't know for 100% whether the claims in the latest post are in fact true. As always, the only people who know the truth are them! I'll continue to wait and see whilst sitting on the fence, a mere observer and powerless shareholder. Thanks again.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
