I don't read that particular excerpt to be a comment by Coleman at all, even if it is how accurate has he been?
That IMO is an interpretation by the author but IF FAR win and decide they want cash rather than to enforce their PE right then arbitration will be required to determine the amount, assuming COP/WPL and FAR can't come to terms.
1] I completely agree WPL had the idea buying the company voided PE rights. Their legal advice said as much........BUT clearly COP had a different view.
This statement also means that WPL lied to the ASX?
a. COP's SEC filling clearly shows sold 35% interest, later changed to sold COP Sen. BV.
b. COP issued a PE rights notice..
c. WPL stated that the sale was subject to approvals and pe rights.
IF there was agreement between COP and WPL that there were no PE rights because of the form of the sale then there is no way COP would have issued a PE notice IMO or have sold their 35% interest in their SEC filling. It would have been sold COP Sen BV from day one.
2 ] Why issue a notice if you didn't believe it was required.....who does that?
3 ] If any deal has not followed the rules then it can be changed, undone or compensated by arbitration IMO. Its a contract. If you breach a contract there are consequences.
4 ] Not sure I understand the statement. What model JOA are you using to determine there is no transfer? The general consensus here is its the 1995 AIPN model, but no one actually knows, that clearly says a share sale triggers PE rights.
5 ] It makes zero difference how it looks.
No one I know would buy anything, or commit to anything, if they didn't feel they had all the information they required to make a fully informed decision.
6 ] I believe the delay was more likely the parties coming to an agreement on the terms of reference. Bullant has proposed the arbitration separated out the notice compliance as COP wanted to see if FAR still have PE rights or not.....but this is all supposition.
All I know for certain is FAR are only seeking declaratory relief, PE rights yes or no.
This could be a ' preliminary ' decision in that arbitration will be required if FAR don't PE.
FAR's chairman has openly stated what happens if FAR win.
Lastly I suggest you look at the ICC time frames.
I doubt in their history there has been a 12 month case.
Rolla has pointed out that FAR were in La La land saying 12 months and I fully agree.
From my searches most cases are 2-3 years at least.
(20min delay)