RE: Quiet week perhaps16 Jan 2024 19:22
PWLX: "Spikey, doesn’t matter that a 3rd party indemnity hasn’t been given - the fact that Queeld and Mispare have indemnified the company in a legal document signed off by the solicitors of both parties and the courts means Eurasia isn’t liable now for any third party coming forward and putting a claim on the shares."
I am going to assume, in good faith, PWLX that you simply don't know what you're talking about! An indemnity is in effect a guarantee by a party to bear the costs/losses of the indemnified party; it IN NO WAY means that EUA is NOT liable to a third party. The ONLY reason you have an indemnity is to protect yourself, and the only party EUA need protection from, financially, is any parties who can bring legal claims against it. So what you have written is completely absurd - if EUA could just sign a document and transfer future losses, as a matter of fact and law, to another party they would not need to be indemnified against said losses! Indemnity is basically a contract between two parties in which one party agrees to cover the legal liabilities of another party. This is NOT a transfer of the cause of action. So... when you agree to do something in return for an indemnity, you need to be sure that the indemnifying party is financially sound and capable of fulfilling the indemnity obligation if/when called upon to do so. It's basically insurance. So ask yourself this question; if you get knocked down and seriously injured by a car, would you prefer the car driver to have no insurance (ie he is self-insuring because you can theoretically sue him for the damage, and take the risk that he can't afford to pay you and goes bankrupt) or would you prefer he be insured by Direct Line, NFU, etc? This is basically the situation for EUA now - they have an indemnity which may or may not be worth the paper it is printed on.