Izatt's credibilityFrom what I read on this board, it does not seem that Izatt has much credibility, given all the contradictions identified in the legal documents (by My69z and others).
While a lot of time is spent dicussing on Izatt's credibility (which is informative BTW), IBC's argumentsseems to be based on something else.
I apologize in advance if I missed the reply to be given to IBC (sometimes the number of posts preclude me from keeping up with the info), but IBC argues, among other thing that (and I will paraphrase):
- IBC was induced to enter OTP under misrepresentations (and thus I understand that IBC claims that the OTP would bu null and void) and that;
- Ucore was insolvent at the time it made the announcement;
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibc-terminates-agreement-with-ucore-and-seeks-relief-for-damages-300798548.html
The main arguments of IBC is therefore two-fold:
1) the OTP is invalid, because misrepresentations were made (and we can assume that IBC will plead that if it had know the thruth, it would not have signed the OTP). Has a discussions took place on this Board as to the actual alleged misrepresentations invoked by IBC to make such a bold statements? If so, can someone repost it or just guide me toward the appropriate documents?
and
2) IBC pretends that UCU should have been solvent and ready to pay the purchase price once UCU sent a notice to purchase MRT. If so, does that mean that there is a clause in the OTP indicating that UCU must be "solvent" whatever that means to exercise its right under the OTP? Or else, was UCU supposed to have all the money at its disposal to pay for the MRT?
IBC seems to rely heavily on this argument as the expert report allegedly support the fact that UCU was not solvent at the time of the notice to purchase (I did not read the expert report). This means that IBC might spend a certain amount of time exposing it in the Court at some point.
After reading what is written in the press release above, it seems to me that IBC asserts that UCU acknowledge (in the forward looking statements) that it was insolvent. It gives a bit of colour to the case, but the expert report seems to be the main argument of IBC re: UCU is not solvent.
If someone can post 1) why IBC claims that there were misrepresentations inducing it to sign the OTP, I would greatly appreciate it and 2) can someone confirm whether a clause was included in the OTP requesting UCU to be "solvent" as it is stated in the press release?
I do not want to enter into another debate, as these are my personnal interpretation of the press release that I refered to above. Please ignore my post if it offends you or better yet put me on ignore if you feel that my questions irritate you.
Moulouk