RE: Crs rns21 Mar 2023 15:38
In 2021 CA's big gamble/risk was the initial standard one day hearing whereat HUR expected the judge to rubber stamp the deal as per normal - CA were NOT represented at that hearing for lack of time to properly prepare and also a desire not to reveal it's defence lines, but made representations by letter.
At CA's specific request (i was the conduit) this forum solidified and sent +200 emails, many with detailed argument and evidence, to the judge to convince him that facts were not as HUR presented, the restructuring application should not be rubber stamped that day, and that a 3 day 'evidence' hearing should be ordered. The judge agreed and ordered a 3 day evidence hearing for some weeks later which gave CA time to prepare. Had this forum not sent +200 emails to the judge (and 3 PIs spoke to the court via camera - it was Covid time), there is a genuine possibility HUR's application would have succeeded at the initial one day hearing. At that one day hearing, PIs (& CA's letter to court) successfully persuaded the judge that SHs were not 'out of the money' in all circumstances and thus had no right to be heard.
CA's legal duty is limited to it's SHs and it has zero legal duty to HUR SHs. By virtue of what it asked PI's to do at the initial one day hearing (perforrmed beyond all expectations) and at the three day evidence hearing thereafter, (again, performed beyond all expectations) it has an ethical obligation to HUR Pis extending beyond it's legal duty to CA shareholders. That obligation is not to present PIs with an Irrevocably Undertaking-protected deal which PI's abhor.
With respect to Kooba who did not involve himself at all in any court events or campaigns and thus whose knowledge concerning such is limited and flawed, there thus exists an ethical obligation of which he is unaware, but should be before opining re this issue.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
