I'm sort of fascinated by this proceeding, and bummed about the confidentiality.
I wonder how Singapore arbitration decides something based on Cayman law if there is minimal precedent. Based on articles I've read about Con Edison it sounds like the shareholder damage issue is not clearly resolved, and all the articles say the Con Edison ruling went against industry understanding and intent, so, you know, nobody agrees.
I'm surprised such an important question is not more clearly resolved.
Do you have any idea if Singapore arbitration based on Caymans law is bound by New York precedent, inclined to use New York precedent, may or may not consider New York precendent, or throw a dart and choose your level of including New York precedent in your judgment? Cuz if not for the limited cases which say shareholder damagers are NOT part of willful breach damages, I would think the common sense view would be that of course they are part of willful breach damages, it's just common sense.
If Sinagpore arbitration agrees the New York case decision was nutty, might they just ignore it? And then despite there being little Caymans law (that we're aware of) on the topic, does Singapore just rule whatever way they choose? Based on......their mood?
Cuz it seems like both methods (common sense says shareholder damages are part of willful breach damages, but a literal interpretation of contract words allows an understanding that shareholder damages are not part of willful breach damages) are reasonable. |
