July Hearing, page-70

I'm sure that somewhere amongst all the posts and the disgussion about PE on here, that the correct discussion will have been covered.
My analagy of the actions of COP and WPL are that they have tried to sell/buy an asset which has a caveat applied to it.

What does a caveat on a property mean?A caveat is a type of statutory injunction preventing the registration of particular dealings with real property. ... The word caveat means 'beware' and lodging a caveat on real property warns anyone dealing with the property that someone has a priority interest in that property.
" Google Apr 17, 2019."

FAR, as a result of the Joint Venture Agreement, in my opinion, have just such a legal priority interest in the asset of oil and gas.

COP and WPL in attempting to sell/buy this asset without total complience with the caveat are challenging the long standing legal precedence that just such legal restrictions have applied to contracts between parties.
The strenght of these provisions have been tested in courts many times and their veracity established.

For WPL to argue that the Joint Venture Agreement does not apply to the sale of a company, in my humble opinion, must be precedented in a legal case somewhere, but I am also of the opinion that the caveat applies to the oil and gas asset which is separate to the company itself.

I think that this point has been made by others on here before written differently but I just wanted to express how I view the dispute.