-
07-06-2019, 02:26 PM
#2541
Last edited by minimoke; 20-06-2019 at 10:10 AM.
Reason: Deleted by Minimoke in response to STMOD censorship of posts
-
07-06-2019, 02:42 PM
#2542
Originally Posted by minimoke
Hugely big pink font - must be an important announcement to be taken seriously.
Now waiting for the counter injunction.
(Edit - obvious a practical solution was not achievable)
Yes quite right. The size of the pink font speaks VAST volumes about the company and its culture. Not at any price...
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
-
07-06-2019, 02:45 PM
#2543
Originally Posted by minimoke
....Edit - somewhere in the documents (I'll try to reference it) there is a clause that says STL are liable for all costs in freeing up covenants. The loser of a case is usually liable for costs of both parties but that clause may trump that practice.
I also read this at some stage??? I recall reading that SML's purchase of Pokeno was conditional on the vendor removing the covenants and that if they didn't then the vendor was liable for all costs incurred by SML?
This would explain why SML has proceeded to build etc.
Anyway the Supreme Court will now decide (if the hearing is in Wellington I might attend as it could be interesting entertainment value!)
-
07-06-2019, 02:55 PM
#2544
Last edited by minimoke; 20-06-2019 at 10:11 AM.
Reason: Deleted by Minimoke in response to STMOD censorship of posts
-
07-06-2019, 03:08 PM
#2545
Member
Now with the China has proposed a new plan regarding their IF market, wouldn't court be looking at an intention of Mr Ye acquiring the land, enjoy the covenants to prevent the competitor extending the manufacturing capacity, then later remove the covenants for himself for business? Also I think SML's movement might be right so that they can show that they are willing to escalate the matter and may be in a better position to settle the matter. I remember FPH and RMD in a patent dispute and how they counter sued each other - I know this is in a quite different perspective though.
-
07-06-2019, 03:12 PM
#2546
Last edited by minimoke; 20-06-2019 at 10:10 AM.
Reason: Deleted by Minimoke in response to STMOD censorship of posts
-
07-06-2019, 03:14 PM
#2547
Member
Originally Posted by pg0220
Now with the China has proposed a new plan regarding their IF market, wouldn't court be looking at an intention of Mr Ye acquiring the land, enjoy the covenants to prevent the competitor extending the manufacturing capacity, then later remove the covenants for himself for business? Also I think SML's movement might be right so that they can show that they are willing to escalate the matter and may be in a better position to settle the matter. I remember FPH and RMD in a patent dispute and how they counter sued each other - I know this is in a quite different perspective though.
I was hoping court can see this is not a normal case. there is a cost for anyone muck around dairy industry in NZ.
Last edited by nzsharetrade; 07-06-2019 at 03:15 PM.
-
07-06-2019, 03:14 PM
#2548
Last edited by minimoke; 20-06-2019 at 10:10 AM.
Reason: Deleted by Minimoke in response to STMOD censorship of posts
-
07-06-2019, 03:20 PM
#2549
Originally Posted by pg0220
Now with the China has proposed a new plan regarding their IF market, wouldn't court be looking at an intention of Mr Ye acquiring the land, enjoy the covenants to prevent the competitor extending the manufacturing capacity, then later remove the covenants for himself for business? Also I think SML's movement might be right so that they can show that they are willing to escalate the matter and may be in a better position to settle the matter.
From that angle, I think SML has got a good point to prove and have the decision turned in their favour.
-
07-06-2019, 03:23 PM
#2550
Member
Originally Posted by minimoke
That is a very high risk tactic. What if NZIPL seek and are granted an injunction forcing SML to cease all work until the matter is resolved through the courts - which could be a year away.
I think SML has already talked to Mr Ye and tried to find a practical solution, then found that he is so stubborn that settling the matter may not be possible. In that case, SML bringing the case up to the Supreme court might be the last practical solution for them. Also unless Mr Ye has purchased the land and doesn't want to settle the matter for the other reason which in case SML will anyway need to abandon the factory, they may be able to come to the practical solution before the Supreme court decision.
It is risky, but SML doesn't seem to have many options available now.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks