Playing Devil's Advocate here: If the council have nothing to hide, why have they tried so hard to prevent the details of the loans, etc. from being disclosed into the public domain?
Sisu have their arses slapped again (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hill83
- Start date
Playing Devil's Advocate here: If the council have nothing to hide, why have they tried so hard to prevent the details of the loans, etc. from being disclosed into the public domain?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
does she?
a quote from joy after FAILING to acquire Welcome Break from a Junior Shareholders position by using litigation to block restructuring of debt to obtain control of the company.Sisu Capital’s chief executive Joy Seppala says: “We have all along believed that Welcome Break is a valuable business and we are disappointed that there will not now be an opportunity for the assets.”
read the whole article here http://www.risk.net/credit/feature/1522975/unwelcome-breakdown
a quote from a piece about joy from FAILED TXU litigation.
Sisu keeps a determinedly low profile but was catapulted into the limelight two years ago when its chief executive Joy Seppala, a 46-year-old Finnish-American, was accused of lying in a High Court wrangle over bust electricity company TXU.
Seppala who is described by rivals as having "balls of steel", was criticised by the trial judge over her "distorted recollection of events" and for being "prone to exaggerate".
she wasn't popular with that judge either.
i wouldn't be surprised that if you looked into it you might find that she wins more out of court by bombarding people in litigation and forcing them into submission to get what she wants, then she does in court, when they get their day in court they fail, possibly.
Last edited:
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Perhaps SISU could show them the way.
They've been pretty poor at disclosure - even on those things that they are legally obliged to disclose - and I'm sure that they "have nothing to hide".
Just playing Devil's Advocate here
Perhaps SISU could show them the way.
They've been pretty poor at disclosure - even on those things that they are legally obliged to disclose - and I'm sure that they "have nothing to hide".
Just playing Devil's Advocate here
That's not attempting to answer the question, merely employing the classic deflection tactic
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
That's not attempting to answer the question, merely employing the classic deflection tactic
To be honest, I wasn't sure that it was a serious question - but OK...
If you were engaged in a legal dispute with a company that prided itself in engaging "opponents" in extensive and expensive legal action as a means to wear them down in negotiations/disputes, would you:
a) be as helpful as possible to them or
b) do the minimum required by law?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Does JS actually win more legal cases or is it that she has deeper pockets to be able to continue the legal actions that outlasts her opponents ability to fund?
The companies etc that she takes action against are generally in a distressed state so have little in the way of fighting funds. If taking on professionals then they will make economic decisions in terms of benefit or loss in continuing an action often backed by insurance advisors. Are these "victories" on points of law or because the other side can not afford to fight the case further or decides not to. There is a big difference.
The companies etc that she takes action against are generally in a distressed state so have little in the way of fighting funds. If taking on professionals then they will make economic decisions in terms of benefit or loss in continuing an action often backed by insurance advisors. Are these "victories" on points of law or because the other side can not afford to fight the case further or decides not to. There is a big difference.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ah "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide".
You must work for GCHQ/The Daily Mail.
And where's your evidence they've "tried so hard"?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Even if everything is above board and 100% correct I would suspect basically because they don't want to give the other side material that could potentially be turned into ammunition to be used back against them when they don't have to.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
spot on here OSB, preying on the vulnerable who can't afford to put up much of a fight is nothing like saying they win all the time in court.
That's a response that makes sense, although I still don't see why any extra legal costs should need to be incurred in defending 'fishing expeditions' if they are not needed - Cue predictable diatribes on SISU and Ms Seppala's litigation history!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
nail on the head OSB
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They're predictable because they're accurate I'm afraid.
Also, they did promise extensive, expensive legal action. And they're in the middle of a PR war trying to paint the council as having something to hide. The accusation alone is worthy as they well know from the previous unfounded accusations they've thrown around.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If I did I would if I knew what they were
There are a lot of claims about SISU and their propensity to use litigation ("we batter people in court"), but there is very little evidence to support these claims and even less evidence to show they are succesful.
These are much the same as the claims that SISU successfully turn around failing businesses and make massive profits from doing so, again claims without evidence.
I am prepared to acknowledge that I am completely wrong if anyone can direct me at evidence to show that SISU do either of these things on a regular basis, not an odd occurrence.
Last edited: