Ann: Subscription Agreements Legal Update, page-54

good oil guy, i agree on everything your saying.

the protagonists that say the supreme court is too expensive to hear a simple claim like this, and without any evidences to support their positions, which speaks for itself, is just pure nonsense..

I find it difficult for the sanston 4 to get their Barrister to convince the judge they have a legitimate reason to need more time to present a defence when they have been actively telling xstate they are settling throughout and have never at any stage ever stated they have any dispute with xstate, nor disputed the agreement nor disputed their liability.. indeed they have only promised payment to xstate from the commencement of signing the binding agreements to the present moment. as we have seen throughout from both xstates releases and releases from sanston to xstate.

as i say, best of luck getting that one past the keeper.

on the basis they have never told xstate and their legal representatives they had any issue with their agreements i cannot see how a judge is going to allow them any further time to present a defence

its all imho, but despite all the comments about other cases, statements on other cases, and comment like no smallcap in this sector has ever successfully won a claim in the supreme court, etc etc.. despite them being incorrect you can see that all of the comments comparing other cases actually did not have anything to compare to this action we have.. in all the other cases, they all had genuine disputes.. had positions and taken legal action to clarify these disputes and have those heard with the interpretation of common law....

this is nothing like that. no disputes, nothing at all. just representation the defendants will pay, thats all we have here.

lets at least compare other legal cases to what we have here.. or cant it be done?? lol