2/2
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
You haven't.
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
These are the 4 key questions we need info on if we are to understand where the TFG/ACap deal stands. Seperately, we don't know if TFG could still be willing to complete even if there is an issue. Seperately, the PL might want clarity too as part of their apprpval process.
I did not.
I made a statement & he challenged it, so I backed it up. The 4 queries back up my statement. He responded they are all addressed in his article. I have indicated they aren't. I believe confidentiality has to be resolved to share terms & reach a conclusion.
These are the 4 key questions we need info on if we are to understand where the TFG/ACap deal stands. Seperately, we don't know if TFG could still be willing to complete even if there is an issue. Seperately, the PL might want clarity too as part of their apprpval process.
2/2
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
You haven't.
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
You do not understand the point of this thread.
So:
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?)
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Ok, so - have the terms been disclosed? IE did ACAP resolve confidentiality to reveal?
Again - did they resolve the confidentiality part to enable Leadenhall to review?
Again - did they resolve the confidentiality part to enable Leadenhall to review?
Ok, so - have the terms been disclosed? IE did ACAP resolve confidentiality to reveal?
Right. Glad we established that. So, the question is: if the NDA dispute has not been resolved (has it?) how will Leadenhall review the terms (have they?).
Right. Glad we established that. So, the question is: if the NDA dispute has not been resolved (has it?) how will Leadenhall review the terms (have they?).
I provided the filings that backed up my post - namely that there is a bone of contention around confidentiality. You have not shown me where that is wrong.
1. I have characterised the filings, which is public information. Please show me where I have wrongly characterised the filings.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
1. I have characterised the filings, which is public information. Please show me where I have wrongly characterised the filings.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
Subsequent filing made by A CAP pleads to the court to expedite matters with a desdline requested of March 2025. So debate centres on was it 1. fair to injunct the deal 2. If terms had to be revealed to court done so under seal 3. Leadenhall needed to sign NDA (all per filings)
See attached filings to that effect (highlighted in yellow). A-CAP & Leadenhall weren't able to agree an NDA. Documents were sent to Court under seal. A further appeal made by A-Cap on an expedited decision on transaction by March 2025 as its causing "harm"
All information above h/t Gregory Cordell on twitter (worth a follow)
All information above h/t Gregory Cordell on twitter (worth a follow)
Subsequent filing made by A CAP pleads to the court to expedite matters with a desdline requested of March 2025. So debate centres on was it 1. fair to injunct the deal 2. If terms had to be revealed to court done so under seal 3. Leadenhall needed to sign NDA (all per filings)
See attached filings to that effect (highlighted in yellow). A-CAP & Leadenhall weren't able to agree an NDA. Documents were sent to Court under seal. A further appeal made by A-Cap on an expedited decision on transaction by March 2025 as its causing "harm"
If they had agreed an NDA or got the court had sealed the documents, then Leadenhall would be reviewing the terms, no?
If they had agreed an NDA or got the court had sealed the documents, then Leadenhall would be reviewing the terms, no?
Where's the money laundering part? It reads like investigation centres on ACaps investments into 777 & ACap has been cooperative. ML implies laundering the proceeds of crime, but source of cash is policy premiums from ACap (?).
As you know, I worry these guys are over sensationalising
The dispute between ACap & Leadenhall on the Everton deal is over the NDA/having the terms kept under seal. Meanwhile, article reads like the DoJ investigation is over misuse of ACap funds, not money laundering (which is using proceeds of crime)...?
The dispute between ACap & Leadenhall on the Everton deal is over the NDA/having the terms kept under seal. Meanwhile, article reads like the DoJ investigation is over misuse of ACap funds, not money laundering (which is using proceeds of crime)...?
Where's the money laundering part? It reads like investigation centres on ACaps investments into 777 & ACap has been cooperative. ML implies laundering the proceeds of crime, but source of cash is policy premiums from ACap (?).
As you know, I worry these guys are over sensationalising
