##""1) Is it probable? No. Qld Courts have determined it Texas Courts don't have jurisdiction over an Australian company, management have determined this and PwC previously signed this off in Jun-17 financial statements. ""##
The Qld Courts have based their opinions on what was presented in front of them at the time. They were under the beliefs that, the Appellate Court in Texas could have taken years, if ever, to come out with a verdict. The verdict was handed down soon after that by that Court in Texas, and none of the arguments put forward by CTP were supported. NONE of them...not a single one.
And don't forget that, although I haven't read it anywhere in any of the company announcements, that CTP has lodged another appeal to the appeal which they have lost. More money down the drain....
So, we have two issues here.:
1) We have one Court in Australia saying that they have jurisdiction, (But based on what evidence), and
2) We have two Court in the USA (one by the first Judge and one by the Appellate Courts in Texas) stating that they have jurisdiction in all of it. TWO AGAINST ONE!!!!
And don't forget that one of the Courts in Texas had more than one judge handing down their views on the case/appeal too. Multiple judges, all with the same view and result.
Now, seen that you are saying you are an Accountant, let's look at it in this way....What does the Law of Contracts say.??
Where was the supposed contract being made/performed.?? Was here in Australia or was it in the USA.?? What were both Shortt and BD doing on the USA at the time when all of this happened.??
Did Mr. Pande ever travelled to Australia to fulfil his part of the obligations, or was Shortt and Dunmore whom travelled to the USA to do whatever is claimed to have happened.? Were was the money being supposedly organised from.??
Why is Shortt refusing to travel to the USA to defend CTO in it's fight.??
And regardless of everything you are trying to put forward to us, a contract is a contract, even if it is only implied or verbally, it does not necessarily have to be in writing, and it will stand in Court if evidence can be produced to support it. Period!!!
Oh..........so many unanswered questions............
##""2) Can it be reasonably estimated? Yes, GRR are seeking $20m but because you need all criteria to be met, it doesn't fit the definition of a liability (i.e. it isn't probable). ""##
To that I will post this part so that everyone can see as to why it has to be treated as a potential liability and brought to account:
"A contingent debt is an unusual kind of debt that is dependent on uncertain future developments. A contigent debt is not a definitive liability as it is based on the outcome of a future event (for example, such as a court verdict)."
""That it is dependent on uncertain future developments. ""That is the crunch part of the sentence.
Now, is it certain that we are not going to be liable for anything, or is it certain that we don't know in which way we will end up.??
As such a provision should be made to cover it....just in case it will turn sour. I remember referring you et all to another company by the code of MPO.
##""Does this mean it will never be a liability? No, not necessarily. More information may come to light or circumstances may change but currently, it does not meet the definition of a liability.""##
Well with that you are already admitting that you are not sure and that you should then go back and read what I wrote above: I.e.
""That it is dependent on uncertain future developments. ""
Expand
(20min delay)