Understand Rock had all of his posts deleted here today..wow. Equal opportunity deletions.
One of them dealt apparently with a reponse to me regarding why a law suit by GTE against AMEX for the forced Russian deal announcement would not be prudent, because GTE stated it was a binding contract. (Sorry Rock if I have it wrong, but I got this second hand as gist of what you were saying).
I am not a lawyer. But if this "contract" were done in the US and called "binding"...without and monetary compensation on signing, it would be thrown out of court as non-binding no matter what was said about it on a subsequent default of the parties.
True, they then could file for damage claims, etc, etc. in US courts.
But in most anyone's eyes, the claim that this is a "binding" contract with no money down...is not binding at all, by default.
Now we have GTE announce by force a "binding" contract with a nebulous foreign entity in the country of Russia, with no money down, and any US person in their right mind at AMEX would call and agree that this is a material "Binding" contract without any legal recourse in a court of convenience?
And that is acceptable protection by the AMEX of its governed control of PR out of one of its listed companies?
I don't think so.
M
Before dawn there is darkness.
AI
