Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
But that's not the question now is it slowplay. The question is, does our TA allow it to happen? Whether it meets your "logic" test is immaterial. Your logic test didn't save us from the RAH holding company loophole in the first place now did it.
Carl
Crud, I agree with you again Carl.
Slow, its not a question of what they will do?, The question is; Can they do it? That is the question every lawyer asks; Can I get around this language legally?
Assuming that they will do the right thing may lead us in to trouble at a later date. It goes along the lines of the DCI compliance out clause. Its not just force majure but anything out of their control. This pharase is not defined in section 2 either. Makes me scratch my head and wonder why it is so vague. I want a great contact, but it needs to be vetted line by line. We got nailed by section 1 language that was not well worded in the past, going forward it may effect our relationship with the company and investor commmunity.
Where we need vague language we have defined language like the "proft/loss" definition, and where we need tighter language its vague.
It falls under the dupe me once shame on you, dupe me twice shame on me phrase.....