"either
deliberately or inadvertently structured"
..well those in the know can't go wrong there.. they certainly coverred the field.... or maybe we should read between the line ( or should that be , between deliberately and inadvertantly) and simply take a guess and take the middleway between deliberately and inadvertantly and simply stick to .... "in the normal cause of business"..
That aside... what is meant by "structured" ??? Difficult to read between the lines on this one.. But those in the know talks about "structured the 35%" AND NOT "structured the
sale of the 35%".. Big big difference. That leaves us with a conundrum... need clarification what is being referred to here.
OdoubleO, could you please ascertain what those in the know allude to when making reference to "structured". Surely it cannot reference to the fact that the 35% was held in a SPV... because, as alluded to yesterday, all parties, when the JOA was entered into, knew exactly who the parties were... and if the interest was indeed held by a SPV from outset..and all parties knew this from outset ( as they did)and who/what they were dealing with, then there can be no excuse later to come and say.. "oops" we overlooked the fact that the 35% is held in a SPV and we should have retained the clause 12 provisions of the AIPN model agreement"... If this is what happened (S.O.S.) and they only now realise the shortcoming.. well if that is the case, FAR needn't bother approaching the ICC.....BUT if we start talking about "
structured the sale of the 35%" to cast legal doubt".. well that is a different ball game all together.. For starters, there would be no place for the word "inadvertantly" because the latter does not envisage "intent"... but "deliberately" does..... and an arbitral body or court won't look kindly on that.... BUT , AGAIN this is all speculation on my part because I do not have access to the JOA or the Sale and Purchase agreement or sources close to the action...
Some ( those in the know)seem to be finding themselves in a VERY enviable position to have access to these critical issues..
So the best I can do is to ask if you would be so kind to try and find out what is the actual "between the lines" message in your third bullet point because I'm not inclined to draw inferences in this instance... simply too ambiguous.
Thanks in anticipation.
I remain hopeful that FAR does in fact hold pre-emptive rights and that the "legal glitch" more than likely refers to the issue I highlighted yesterday.
Oh...As for the possibility that the parties may, or have, engaged in amicable discussion.... remember.. a less than favorable negotiated outcome always beats a "good case"... Pushing a matter into court/ICC is also a means of extracting a "better deal" than what is initially on the table. Keeping the matter in ICC...but pending...that's to keep the bastards honest during the negotiation process....
ALL in my opinion.
(20min delay)