On one side of the equation you a qualified as a Barrister who specialised in company law, securities and banking law and takeovers and mergers regulations. Backed up by non-practising barrister with a broad range of corporate and business experience.
On the other side of the equation you have someone with no formal legal qualifications, who rightly or wrongly has obviously been left with a sour taste in their mouth.
I heavily doubt a qualified barrister who specialises in takeover and merger regulations, would not be crossing his T's and dotting his I's. I also doubt that he would let it get this far, if he was concerned that they were in the wrong.
I would say that a person who makes decisions based more on emotions than practical sense, will lose more battles than they win.
You never know what might happen, but for the reasons above, I am extremely confident that this will just blow over, and I know what side I would be putting my money on.
At the end of the day, I think the question is whether TAM were actively canvassing NST for a better deal. From what I have heard, I don't believe this is the case. If it is found that NST approached TAM off their own bat, it is as good as case closed as far as I am concerned.
In saying that, I am not a lawyer myself, although I do have a Tafe Certificate IV in Team Leadership.
Expand
