xandy, apologies if I seemed a bit dismissive and abrupt, but the culmination of rubbish posted here by some (not you) can be absurd at times. Sometimes it feels like I am trying to convince people that the world is round.
"But it also doesn't say that SMM have sided with the government."
At the commencement of the trial, SMM claimed that their letter of intent was invalidly cancelled. Also at the commencement of the trial, the position of the SI Government was that their cancellation of SMM's letter of intent was valid. Now, the SI Government is agreeing with SMM that it was invalidly cancelled. I don't know how you could construe that in any way other than the SI Government has sided with SMM.
"This isn't a party that is a member of a case, it is the equivalent of the Commonwealth for SI. So they must remain impartial to the proceedings."
The government is a party to the case, and by no means do they have to act impartial. Like any party to a case, their job is to protect their own self interest. If someone sues the government, their first reaction is to defend themselves.
" It's a very strange document and seemed to come out of nowhere"
It's not a strange document at all. It's basically an agreed statement of facts, which was also done in the previous appeal. The purpose of something like an agreed statement of facts is to confine the case to the relevant issues and save cost and time. This type of stuff is very common in courts. It is, in effect, telling the court what are and what are not the issues in dispute.
"Yet, we have no indication what the "government" this document is referring to. A specific department? My point was that it is incredibly ambiguous to simply refer to the "government" as a whole because so many things make up to become said government - departments, MPs, PMs, executive officers and yes, the judicial arm is part of the government too. "
The government the document is referring to is the government that is a party to the trial. It's not ambiguous at all - the government is one of the parties to the case, and they have agreed to some issues with SMM. It is interesting why the definition of 'government' only seems to have arisen when something unfavourable to AVQ comes up. Why didn't anyone question what the 'government' was before this discovery? More to the point, the court knows who the government is, and doesn't need to spend any time defining it.
"You're calling this document news?"
Refining it down to a simple example, SMM took legal action against AVQ and the SI Government. At the time, both AVQ and the SI Government had a mutual interest in defending themselves. Now the SI Government has turned around and said to SMM "you know what, you're right". You don't think that affects AVQ's position at all? You don't think AVQ shareholders would be interested to know of such developments?
Where have you read that the AG hasn't signed it? Or hasn't signed it yet? Or where did you read that the AG even needs to sign it?
"At the end of the day, this consent order was not approved and I can only imagine the judge laughing at its content."
Where did you read that the consent order was not approved? The document is to state the position of the SI Government and SMM. It's not up to the court as to whether this is 'approved' or not. It is the SI Government saying "our position is that the LOI was cancelled invalidly". The court can't say to the SI Government "hey, you can't say that".
This isn't to say that the court can't make a finding that it was validly cancelled. But in coming to that decision, the court will consider the position of various parties, including the SI Government's position, which we all know about now.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?