from our company secretary7 Apr 2017 19:00
Dear Mr Rusty
I believe that you have made enquiries to Tom Lyons relating to the litigation against Panda. You state that "the only updates WE get is via you. Craven doesn't think it is important enough to update". My first question is who is "WE"?.
May I draw your attention to the fact that a full update of the status of the litigation was given at the AGM.
For the purposes of further clarity an action was commenced in the Commercial Court in Ireland against Sretaw (the holding company for Panda) on foot of a heads of agreement entered into on the 21st May 2015. The heads of agreement clearly state that they are binding on the Vendor. It is on foot of this heads of agreement which we are suing for specific performance. They are denying that there is a binding agreement in place and state in their proceedings that even if there was a binding agreement in place, that it has fallen away due tot he efflux of time.
Under the Irish system cases of this nature are strictly managed by the Commercial Court. We are at the discovery stage where we furnished a list of documents in various categories. We sought a category of documents relating to an acquisition by Panda (whilst under contract to Craven House Capital plc) of a rival waste company called Greenstar. The Commercial Court granted us the right to these documents. Sretaw are appealing to the Court of Appeal the direction of the Commercial Court in respect of this category. This was before the Court of Appeal last Friday, wherein the Court stated that it will allot a date and time for the hearing of the appeal by Sretaw on the 27th April. We will wait and see what date the court will assign for the hearing of the appeal.
The substantive case for the specific performance action is some time away from been heard. We will be before the court on an almost monthly basis for direction on case management, prior to the hearing of the action. That said I would envisage the hearing of the action in or about November / December and it will run for approximately 10 days.
Finally may I draw your attention to the following ;
The case is not a material event and will not become a material event until such time as the action is determined.
The Commercial Court takes a very deem view of public announcements by litigants on cases the are "Sub Judice" (before the courts), as it is viewed that the litigant is attempting to influence the court by mean of media.
It is ridiculous for any litigant to comment on an action that is before the courts from a tactical point of view.
All of the documentation to date and papers relating to the action are a matter of public record and can be accessed through www.courts.ie. the case reference number is Record No. 2016/6386p
To state that there is "smoke and mirrors" relating to this action is frankly a nonsense for the reasons set out above
Sincerely yours
Brian Winters
Legal Counsel / Company Secretary
Cra
Sign In
Follow the stocks
