Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Silicon Motion Inc. (SIMO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (2709)	8/15/2023 12:58:26 PM
From: Anonymous895	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2977

He doesn't have to be a lawyer to cite precedents (he starts out by saying that he is not a lawyer); he is just pointing out that similar cases have come to court before on this issue and this is how they've ruled. You say you've read articles that say the opposite and rebuff the cases he cites. That's very interesting and relevant. Citation, please? I'm not sure why you're so certain that the Wells Fargo financing commitment ended. It ends if the deal terminates, yes, but the tribunal may find that the deal did not in fact terminate correctly and the deal is still on. Having read the Wells Fargo financing commitment, I do not see any clear language one way or the other. For example, no final end date for the commitment is given. Why are you so certain that the Wells Fargo commitment is off even if the tribunal finds that the merger agreement is still in force? And why do you doubt that Singapore arbitration takes years? Do your research. SIAC themselves proudly tout that their arbitrations average 15 months or so. And most of their arbitrations are much smaller cases of $15-$20 million. Bigger cases always take longer, even if simply because it makes sense to pay your lawyers to drag out the case when so much is at stake. Most of your response is simply disbelief, without much to back it up. The speaker, however, backed himself up with citations, similar cases, stats, etc. Yes, it depends on Cayman Islands law, but without any clear precedent from a Cayman Islands court, why would the Singapore tribunal decide to break new ground instead of following precedents from respected courts with similar legal systems to that of the Cayman Islands? Sure, it's possible, but why are you so confident that they will do so. Seems on the unlikely side, which is all the speaker said.