A very timely change of policy & a big middle finger to the MMGA fools!So even if a director gets voted in, they could be booted on a technicality?
I've got a couple of box trifecta - 1, 8 & 21 and 8, 11 & 2130 E/W on Kalapour + mystery trifecta
Cmon baby
No because AJN aren't getting the northwould this include Nige's financial interest in AJN (if he still holds those shares?)
I've boxed 9, 10 and 17..I've got a couple of box trifecta - 1, 8 & 21 and 8, 11 & 21![]()
bad omen if that comes inI've boxed 9, 10 and 17..![]()
10 scratchedI've boxed 9, 10 and 17..![]()
Well spotted!!bad omen if that comes inhedging your bets TC?
Watch for them all to be late scratchings
They would keep their seat just not be allowed to vote on matters relating to their conflict of interest. Also possibly not even receive information on the matter unless approved by the non-conflicted directors. And if a conflicted director trys to change this policy to be able to vote or receive information in a matter they are conflicted in there will need to be a vote by the non-conflicted directors to approve.
Hypothetically if we end up with 3 MMGA - 2 current bod after the AGM this policy could be used as a defence against MMGA control if the 'reasonable opinion of the chair' says they are conflicted regarding Manono
Just a reflection of my betting abilities!!!bad omen if that comes inhedging your bets TC?
Watch for them all to be late scratchings
I missed it!A very timely change of policy & a big middle finger to the MMGA fools!
Off topic - any Melbourne Cup picks?
Not yet - it shouldn't come as a surprise that ZJ has requested an extension for the hearing in regards to throwing JCM v AVZ out the window. They've used the bullshit below:@9cardomaha Has the first domino fallen?
Can't see how ZJ can make a case against AVZ, or Dathcom, if they never were part of the Dathcom JV, or AVZ.Not yet - it shouldn't come as a surprise that ZJ has requested an extension for the hearing in regards to throwing JCM v AVZ out the window. They've used the bullshit below:
'ZJ being out of Dathcom does not force a withdrawal of the case, as AVZ, despite Dathcom JV being terminated (unlawfully) continues with its ICC cases. The case is also to seek remedy for past misconduct, and the current situation has no impact on the proceedings.'
Not sure how the single arbitrator will rule on this one, a bit up in the air at the moment. If we don't get a favourable ruling for this, we will just sit till Feb 2024 for ruling on jurisdiction.....
However, the emergency injunction increase should be approved around the corner - haven't heard anything about them trying to delay that one, or maybe they tried and got rejected. Who knows. Emergency rulings are handed out 15 days after submissions, which would be 17th November if all things go according to plan.
So 150,000 euros per day, calculated from the 5th May to date....
Time flows differently on an all expenses paid cruise trip.... also i heard brown paper bags now come with a 6-month payment plan, interest freeCan't see how ZJ can make a case against AVZ, or Dathcom, if they never were part of the Dathcom JV, or AVZ.
I can't see why a arbitrator needs half a year to think about that one.
But what if cash mowed the 'wrong lawn' and was the cause of said divorce?Time flows differently on an all expenses paid cruise trip.... also i heard brown paper bags now come with a 6-month payment plan, interest free
But legally it has some legs: for instance, if cash mowed your lawn in 2008 and at the time your marriage was questionable with ongoing disputes as to whether you were actually married, but have now formally declared that you are divorced, you can still file a claim for the 2008 lawn mowing escapades in 2023.
Now, if one of those disputes from 2008 proved that the marriage was void at the time of lawns being mowed, then your 2023 claim would be forcefully withdrawn.
I hope i understood the euphemism.
Spoke too soon on the injunction, there's been a submission by Cominiere against the increased injunction and within the submission a request to withdraw the thing.