Hi DB et al., I don't think COP is really doing any backflips....

Hi DB et al.,

I don't think COP is really doing any backflips. Their case probably hinges on accepting an inconsequential error of process that would not have resulted in a successful PE by FAR (inability to satisfy conditions) in any event.

And what COP or WPL 'say' outside of a court or a contract is given little or no weighting by the courts.

But I am interested in FAR's approach here which caught me a little off-guard.

Typical litigation involves, very simplistically, a 2 stage process of a) ruling and b) award. The 2 international arbitrations I have been involved in went for this duel-punch approach in order to, ultimately, save time and seek remedy.

FAR have appeared to opted to take a more 'efficient' approach and may not be seeking an award ruling from the court. This will make it much easier for the court to make a finding and ruling; not having to assess and rule on subjective arguments of loss and value.

We may/will never know the ToR of the case, but FAR definitely want the court to rule that their rights are preserved.

What happens after that will be the business end of the stick. If FAR win, they earn the right to sit down with COP and purchase or negotiate. Purchase would be the easiest path....

but we really don't know squat about this whole situation and are all likely to be a bit/ a lot/ totally wrong as far as this is concerned.

Cheers,