fyds

None of us do - as long as our board acts quickly though, there is nothing stopping them now.

If Hicks is selling his shares it's a change of ownership - it should be ratified by the board.

Give it a rest Mike - just for today at least.

There is now no obstacle to NESV completing in the next seconds. It certainly does help our end. RBS have refused Mill Fimnancial money on legal ground - and new offer would be surely subject to scrutiny, by which time John Henry is holding up a scarf.

Yep - and as RBS have already refused their money on legal advice...

Don't see how that helps them but it fress our lot to complete as of this second.

Get that cash into RBS now, John Henry! NOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!

YES!

Ooh good one - if he has and not declared it...

It does - not helped by Sky and (occssionally) BBC and some sports writers getting it elementarily wrong. Some of the old broadsheets hvae sough opinion from the top draw of m'learned friends Inns and they are all pretty unanimous ourlot have doen it right, and Hicks has no legal leg to stand on. - Their opnion, not mine - I'm just relaying it. Several p[osters have posetd in this threadsome very impressive pieces by these various people - but with 368 pages - I'm not going looking for them now! Yes because of contractual agreements made at the last round of refinancing - it would also constitute a change of ownership which we're told would require ten days notice to be given to the PL.

If IF Ben Smith is right, fingers crossed his time is up.

As Justice Floyd clearly put the authority for all sales and ownership changes in the hands of the board, it could be if RBS were to accept money from Mill Financial they would be in genuine contempt here. Libel lawyers in the states would have great fun with that.

As far as we know going from various legal heads opinions, you're right - he can't.

Good point - it would open a whole new can of legals when they already have a deal in place.

Reasonably mate. I've been following this in detail for some years now and have long awaited these dying days. He's going down, he's just not going quietly - as none of us ever thought he would. There are less than 16 hours left for him and his sidekick now, and the real power is with our side who are just trying to do it all right, fully legally, no mess and no loopholes. I have faith we'll get there.

So possibly 'familiar' with Hicks, but not necessarily beholden to him then.

I think RBS are the ones who most want it thrown out in Dallas. NESV are already calling themselves 'the new owners'.

That's the thing with cold 'print' isn't it? I thought it might be a bit of that too.

Not quite, they don't have to remove it, but it would be certainly advantageous to do so.

You really are a cheery basta*d, arn't you

Yep - that's what it looks set like.

Absolutely - but he needs around £280m minimum up front as cash and not as a refinance deal (that would be blocked by the board) to get started. Any takers?

The point is Vic, the TRO has no jurisdiction to actually stop the sale. The problem lies in possible proceedings against RBS because of its other Texas interests if the deal goes ahead, and somewhat less likely against NESV. Even so, as it's a civil case it's hard to say what the penalties could be. A fine, seemingly from what i can find out if 'proven'.

Oh ffs - it COULD be a problem to future dealings for RBS there - their other businesses. It is not a problem, for LFC, it's very unlikely a problen for NESV as though they are states based, this is a civil case and not a federal one so is unenforcable in Massachusetts where they are based. So - if they can get it lifted sharpish then that would be best as it removes that last possible question.

Effectively, yes - though it's even unlikely they would be touchable. RBS's dealings in texas though could be more problematic, and that is the main problem.