Originally Posted by
cactus320
I agree, went through the agreements and I cannot support the claim I made.
However, it is interesting to see the company's take on a new East merger committee to skirt the 9th.
From Siegel:
"Now, from the Company's perspective, we were entirely neutral in the course of that DFR litigation. We took no sides.
But having taken no sides, once we read the injunction, and we have a -- or not the injunction, but the Ninth Circuit ruling, we do not favor attempting to maneuver or to create workarounds on federal court decisions.
And if the purpose of suggesting a new committee be formed is to then be able to assert that the new East committee is not bound like the prior East committee under the USAPA name, by the Court decision, would be to ignore what the Ninth Circuit has said.
And we don't favor that."
The protocol agreement specifically prohibits the apa from interfering in anyway with the east committee, that includes appointing anyone to said committee or a new committee for that matter. The east pilots only have rights to a process under MB, that process was given them, choosing to tnot show up is not a defense and well established in arbitration precedent.