It isn't Higgs vs CCFC though is it.............. It is Higgs vs SISU................. CCFC/OEG/SBS&L are not actually part of the action at all as I understand it.
Which kind of points to it being SISU or their investors (was it the same investors?)that tried to buy the Charity shares not CCFC doesn't it ? (it certainly was not on the basis of the option that existed we have been told)
In my opinion the reason there is such a discrepancy in the two claims is not because SISU spent that much more
1) the size of the counter claim was designed to bully and scare the Charity in to giving in (nothing illegal or unusual in that)
2) I suspect that SISU feel there are documents that the charity have that could be useful in their case for the JR. Which is a problem because the JR has been taken out by CCFC H, SBS&L and ARVO none of whom are party to this first action and have no right to the information so can not legally use it. Therefore they need the documents to become public (eg read out in Court would do that) so that the applicants to the JR can use them. I think the Charity were supposed to roll over and do that. Will they ? Does that imply there was anything to find? who knows, there might but just as likely there might not be...... was it perhaps to some degree a fishing expedition by SISU? that in the scheme of things wont have cost much in my opinion
3)perhaps they needed to expand the case (create a case) to include other actions/inactions linked to the JR so needed to make the claim. The Charity case itself it seems to me actually rests on whether the clause in the Heads of terms on the share deal is binding or not and who it relates to, all the other stuff is not as relevant as people think in my opinion. SISU have not put in a defence of that claim as far as I know, but instead issued a counter claim. By expanding the case they bring other actions and documents in to play that may help in the JR
All just guesswork and I expect it will become clear next week
Of course if SISU were actually the owners of CCFC then I would guess there would be a good case for CCFCH, SBS&L and ARVO using any documents....... but my understanding is that SISU are agents for investors not beneficial owners of OEG/CCFC. Remember the first court case is Higgs vs SISU and SISU vs Higgs (counter claim). SISU might feel they have strong case that proves otherwise
Of course the Charity took action, they have a clause they see as binding for SISU to pay them £29000 if talks cease. If the clause is that simple then it doesn't matter why they ceased, surely it would be more detailed?. But as I understand it talks on the shares started in May 2012, SISU conducted some due diligence in June 2012 but never came back and completed it apparently, the meeting in Leeds was December 2012 when the SISU plan was rejected seemingly, and the Council loan was January 2013....... there are some big gaps there for something that was apparently crucial to the survival of the club and recovery of investment. Yes things take time but ............. The Charity had a legal debt to recover, in a sense it could be argued SISU needed the Charity to claim so they could issue their counter claim in order to go fishing for "discovery" of Charity documents to use in the JR to back the conspiracy case put forward (couldn't do that so easily if no claim by the Charity) but we are unlikely to find out if there is any truth in that
Will the case make 3 days or will it all be struck out? There are a lot more outcomes than a 3 day case and one side winning the money I think...... just my opinion but I do not think it is the money that is important to SISU right now
reality may of course be completely different
*** Edit ....... Just to make clear despite the moral outrage there is nothing that has been done or surmised as done that is illegal as far as I know. This is use of the law as it exists and the involvement of a charity does not change that.
