Re: LFC Sold to NESV (RBS WIN COURT RULING - CONFIRMED.........TBC
Posted from elsewhere (from a Yank attorney)
This is an explanation as to what is going on with the RO issued today (for me still today as I am in Iowa, US):
As a practicing attorney and a partner at a good size firm in the US, in Iowa, I can tell you the following:
Getting a restraining order is not that difficult.
If you are a member of your bar in good standing getting any order from a judge (as long as you prepared it yourself and the judge just needs to sign) is also not very difficult. I take my job seriously but I can tell you from experience, I have had 100s of orders signed by judges in the courts I practice and not once has one been denied or actually read in any detail by any judge who signed it. As long as you are in a reputable firm and your reputation is good judges sign no questions asked.
The judge in TX signed the order but he also apparently read the order in detail that was prepared by Hicks’ attorney. Read the order that many have now linked to. Judge everywhere hand wrote the word “solelyâ€, meaning that he wanted everyone to be clear that he is basing this only on the info given to him by Hicks’ attorney. This also means that the judge was as uncomfortable as heck doing this. However, if I came to a district court judge here in Iowa (one I knew) I could get it signed as well, and I know the judge would be sweating doing that.
These judges are not legal geniuses. As soon as a reputable attorney for RBS, LFC, NESV makes a good legal argument that this case should not be heard in Texas or anywhere else in the US (for reasons in my previous post #1338) the judge will drop this case like a hot potato. He may have even indicated so to Hicks’ lawyer. I’ve heard judges say to lawyers, “You better not get me in trouble with this!†There is no reason any judge in TX state court would want to sit and listen to arguments or a trial over an English club, being bought by someone from New England, in danger of administration by Royal Bank of Scotland where all contracts, loans and undertakings were done in England with English laws.
Then there’s the choice of forum (and perhaps choice of law as well) in the loan documents signed initially by H&G, and extension docs signed recently as well as undertakings signed apparently in April of this year. They all seemed iron clad to the High Court Judge yesterday in England. It would be royally stupid to think that those same documents do not state that all disputes arising out of these documents, transactions and contemplated dealings and transactions are to be heard only in England in XYZ court by applying laws of ABC. RBS would never be so stupid as not to include those. Any RBS lawyer would be guilty of malpractice if he did not include choice of forum and law terms.
SO RELAX, this can be likely promptly removed and dismissed by a competent local counsel hired by RBS, NESV, LFC so that NESV and LFC board have no uneasy feelings signing the documents and tendering over money to RBS to wipe out loans.
Last but not least Hicks' lawyer at the end of the order tried to include a provision that no outside court can interfere with this RO once given and the judge specifically struck out that provision. Again, everyone please read the order as the link has been poster 15-20 times by now. That judge was uncomfortable signing that paper evidenced by deletions, additions etc.
So everyone on this side of the Atlantic, go to bed and sleep well.
Posted from elsewhere (from a Yank attorney)
This is an explanation as to what is going on with the RO issued today (for me still today as I am in Iowa, US):
As a practicing attorney and a partner at a good size firm in the US, in Iowa, I can tell you the following:
Getting a restraining order is not that difficult.
If you are a member of your bar in good standing getting any order from a judge (as long as you prepared it yourself and the judge just needs to sign) is also not very difficult. I take my job seriously but I can tell you from experience, I have had 100s of orders signed by judges in the courts I practice and not once has one been denied or actually read in any detail by any judge who signed it. As long as you are in a reputable firm and your reputation is good judges sign no questions asked.
The judge in TX signed the order but he also apparently read the order in detail that was prepared by Hicks’ attorney. Read the order that many have now linked to. Judge everywhere hand wrote the word “solelyâ€, meaning that he wanted everyone to be clear that he is basing this only on the info given to him by Hicks’ attorney. This also means that the judge was as uncomfortable as heck doing this. However, if I came to a district court judge here in Iowa (one I knew) I could get it signed as well, and I know the judge would be sweating doing that.
These judges are not legal geniuses. As soon as a reputable attorney for RBS, LFC, NESV makes a good legal argument that this case should not be heard in Texas or anywhere else in the US (for reasons in my previous post #1338) the judge will drop this case like a hot potato. He may have even indicated so to Hicks’ lawyer. I’ve heard judges say to lawyers, “You better not get me in trouble with this!†There is no reason any judge in TX state court would want to sit and listen to arguments or a trial over an English club, being bought by someone from New England, in danger of administration by Royal Bank of Scotland where all contracts, loans and undertakings were done in England with English laws.
Then there’s the choice of forum (and perhaps choice of law as well) in the loan documents signed initially by H&G, and extension docs signed recently as well as undertakings signed apparently in April of this year. They all seemed iron clad to the High Court Judge yesterday in England. It would be royally stupid to think that those same documents do not state that all disputes arising out of these documents, transactions and contemplated dealings and transactions are to be heard only in England in XYZ court by applying laws of ABC. RBS would never be so stupid as not to include those. Any RBS lawyer would be guilty of malpractice if he did not include choice of forum and law terms.
SO RELAX, this can be likely promptly removed and dismissed by a competent local counsel hired by RBS, NESV, LFC so that NESV and LFC board have no uneasy feelings signing the documents and tendering over money to RBS to wipe out loans.
Last but not least Hicks' lawyer at the end of the order tried to include a provision that no outside court can interfere with this RO once given and the judge specifically struck out that provision. Again, everyone please read the order as the link has been poster 15-20 times by now. That judge was uncomfortable signing that paper evidenced by deletions, additions etc.
So everyone on this side of the Atlantic, go to bed and sleep well.
