Re: Football Chat : Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:24 am
keithcun wrote:
The judge has amended the TRO so it reads, based "solely" on allegations, therefore on everything that Hicks has said. Hicks's lawyer would have prepared this lawsuit, the judge has read it and added solely (to cover his back I would imagine)
Secondly, the judge has crossed out "Taking any action in any other court to effect or impede this lawsuit".
I get the impression, a favour has been called, the judge has signed it but added his own caveats to protect himself, but as soon as the big wigs from RBS, Liverpool et al get to work, it will be soon overturned. I doubt the judge would have been aware of the court case yesterday, it wouldn't surprise me if Hicks or his lawyer forgot to mention it.
Secondly, the judge has crossed out "Taking any action in any other court to effect or impede this lawsuit".
I get the impression, a favour has been called, the judge has signed it but added his own caveats to protect himself, but as soon as the big wigs from RBS, Liverpool et al get to work, it will be soon overturned. I doubt the judge would have been aware of the court case yesterday, it wouldn't surprise me if Hicks or his lawyer forgot to mention it.
It wouldnt surprise me if Hicks hasnt traded on a fairly common view held by US lawyers that all other legal systems are inherently inferior to the US and that US citizens need protection from such systems. The idea of a Board selling a company without the permission of the owners is, on the face of it, irrational and if Hicks didnt mention or skirted over the issue of the governance letter the judge might not have taken too much convincing over the need for a TRO.
I agree that it seems likely that when the full facts are spelt out to the judge the TRO should be overturned. But you just wonder how many more tricks H&G have up their sleeves.
