I Agree - an SFO case would be a much higher standard of guilt than a defamation proceedings.
However there are two simple defences to defamation. One is that that the what was said was pretty much the truth. The other is its an honest opinion based on fact. The Shareholders association, it si reported , have said that shppards statements were incorect. So resumambly lacking in fact and or truth.
Again it is simple. The creditor wants their money. Thats what they are entitled to and as long as their claim is legitimate there is nothing unreasonable about it. If ALF can't provide the money then some other means of settlement might be arranged. It is conceivable it might arrange the transfer of the asset but I think improbable.Quote:
The $540k creditor has still not reached the brink yet.
Does the creditor want the money, or the asset? When the crunch comes they may just want the money.
Further, if the said creditors calls are unreasonable, then a court may elect that marshalling will come into play.
Has the fat lady finished cleaning her teeth yet?
Make no mistake, ALF is at the brink and they are toppling over. The only remaining question is if someone will throw a life line.
I am not sure what this "marshalling " is you refer to. In a liquidation there is a clear order of people who get paid. And IRD is up there