Originally Posted by
rickair7777
I believe you are correct on this. Since their scope language contains a major omission leaving a legal loophole for the holding company scenario it only makes sense that they would focus their energies on something other than a legal battle which they are highly likely if not certain to lose (my opinion only).
I think your wrong on this:
Main Entry: en·ti·ty
Pronunciation: \ˈen-tə-tē, ˈe-nə-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural en·ti·ties
Etymology: Medieval Latin entitas, from Latin ent-, ens existing thing, from coined present participle of esse to be — more at is
Date: 1596
1 a : being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2 : something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
3 : an organization (as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members
Our scope language contains this word as it's main leverage. Can you argue that ASA an ASA alone bought XJT? I'm not saying it's a slam dunk we can win in court, but it has a good chance.