Old article with small piece on SISU (1 Viewer)

[BenBailey]

Just wanted to share this 2008 Telegraph piece on private companies, SISU get a small mention.

Signs of legal crap were clearly there it seems

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...te-companies-Finance-at-its-very-highest.html

 

---

[CJ_covblaze]

The TXU Energy case is a brilliant read. The Honorable Mr Justice Warren said

"I have no doubt that all of the witnesses who gave oral evidence are honest people, none of whom is deliberately lying or attempting to mislead the court except that I do have some reservation in the case of Ms Seppala"

So he thought she lied in a court of law.

Football League rule F.1.4.2 which is in the disqualification of directors and owners section:

In respect of any offence involving any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

The TXU Energy case is a brilliant read. The Honorable Mr Justice Warren said

"I have no doubt that all of the witnesses who gave oral evidence are honest people, none of whom is deliberately lying or attempting to mislead the court except that I do have some reservation in the case of Ms Seppala"

So he thought she lied in a court of law.

Football League rule F.1.4.2 which is in the disqualification of directors and owners section:

In respect of any offence involving any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

Bring it up at the Scg see how it goes:angelic: think you might get:banhappy:

 

[chiefdave]

Football League rule F.1.4.2 which is in the disqualification of directors and owners section:

In respect of any offence involving any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

What offence was she convicted for, perjury presumably?

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Bring it up at the Scg see how it goes:angelic: think you might get:banhappy:

Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.

No need it will be in the minutes :woot::woot:

 

[martcov]

Just wanted to share this 2008 Telegraph piece on private companies, SISU get a small mention.

Signs of legal crap were clearly there it seems

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...te-companies-Finance-at-its-very-highest.html

Pity they haven't done a "where are they now" analysis for all these firms. 2008 was still at the start of the melt down and the figures quoted would have been taken from 2007 as the world for hedge funds was still looking good ( at least at the start of 2007 ).

 

[chiefdave]

Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.

FL have said before the fit and proper test is very difficult for them to enforce. Unless someone has been convicted of something they open themselves up to legal action.

Would she even have to pass fit and proper? She runs the company that manages the funds that unvested in the club, would that qualify her? Suspect its a loophole that wasn't considered when the rules were drawn up.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

What offence was she convicted for, perjury presumably?

Any offence involving an act that's proved to be dishonest. I know she's not been found guilty but it's still an offence isn't it? E.g. You could commit the offence of speeding, you haven't been found guilty but you've still committed an offence haven't you?

 

[martcov]

Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.

Is " some reservations " proof of dishonesty? Wasn't it followed by criticism along the lines of Joy's poor recollection of events? We know, or think we know, what was meant, but the judge did not say directly that Joy had lied. Just inferred it. I think that leaves room to wriggle out of the FL's definition. But, I am no expert. Tim seems to think he knows what is right in law and in fact, so maybe he could help on that.

 

[martcov]

FL have said before the fit and proper test is very difficult for them to enforce. Unless someone has been convicted of something they open themselves up to legal action.

Would she even have to pass fit and proper? She runs the company that manages the funds that unvested in the club, would that qualify her? Suspect its a loophole that wasn't considered when the rules were drawn up.

More like Tim runs the company and she has control of Arvo, the people pulling the strings or deciding if we carry on trading or not. We don't know who the investors in Arvo are or whether they are criminals.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Is " some reservations " proof of dishonesty? Wasn't it followed by criticism along the lines of Joy's poor recollection of events? We know, or think we know, what was meant, but the judge did not say directly that Joy had lied. Just inferred it. I think that leaves room to wriggle out of the FL's definition. But, I am no expert. Tim seems to think he knows what is right in law and in fact, so maybe he could help on that.

No I don't think Timmy can help as he has recently decided he isn't a lawyer

 

[Grendel]

Any offence involving an act that's proved to be dishonest. I know she's not been found guilty but it's still an offence isn't it? E.g. You could commit the offence of speeding, you haven't been found guilty but you've still committed an offence haven't you?

No it's not an offence - it's an opinion.

 

[lifeskyblue]

An opinion of someone who has heard all the evidence and has a career sifting through the rights and wrongs of corporate law. I would certainly trust that 'opinion' over and above the opinions of amateurs like all of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Is " some reservations " proof of dishonesty? Wasn't it followed by criticism along the lines of Joy's poor recollection of events? We know, or think we know, what was meant, but the judge did not say directly that Joy had lied. Just inferred it. I think that leaves room to wriggle out of the FL's definition. But, I am no expert. Tim seems to think he knows what is right in law and in fact, so maybe he could help on that.

True. Yeah Tim has made out he's an expert. Strangely enough at the SCG he responded to questions regarding the legal issues with "sorry can't answer, I'm not a lawyer"

 

[martcov]

No I don't think Timmy can help as he has recently decided he isn't a lawyer

Sorry, but it's hard to keep up with all this ;-)

 

[wingy]

There is evidence she has lied here but what you do with that I don't know.

 

[Deleted member 2477]

No it's not an offence - it's an opinion.

Talking shit again grendel. Common law is only beyond the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal law.
The judge having heard all the evidence has stated a fact that would be recorded in the court that js has been dishonest and as such would not have taken her evidence as fact.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Challenge accepted! I'll let you know how I get on. It should be noted that she wasn't found guilty of anything. It also should be noted that the FL rules also state she doesn't have to be found guilty, just be proved to be dishonest.

You will be scoffed at & they will attempt to belittle you probably

...onwards & upwards PUSB

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Talking shit again grendel. Common law is only beyond the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal law.
The judge having heard all the evidence has stated a fact that would be recorded in the court that js has been dishonest and as such would not have taken her evidence as fact.

He didn't say she had been dishonest. He said he had reservations...it stops short of calling her a liar

...onwards & upwards PUSB

 

[Rusty Trombone]

The judges opinions carry on with........
Extract
Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. In making my general
comments above, I said that no-one was deliberately lying. But I fear Ms Seppala has a
distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings
in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a “spin”
(I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants’ case. She is
also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her
the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by
her) that Mr Wallace had “continually” represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks
had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also
recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as
I conclude, take place.

 

[Grendel]

Talking shit again grendel. Common law is only beyond the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal law.
The judge having heard all the evidence has stated a fact that would be recorded in the court that js has been dishonest and as such would not have taken her evidence as fact.

Nope it was an opinion and expressed as such - there was no CPS involvement and no perjury allegation.