InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 2
Posts 435
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/30/2009

Re: RDG013 post# 67131

Sunday, 09/05/2010 1:12:49 PM

Sunday, September 05, 2010 1:12:49 PM

Post# of 83044
RDG,

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. From what I read in the initial filing the concern was that the intecreditor agreement was not signed because of PNs actions. For there to be damages they will have to prove that the agreement would have gone through if PN had not interfered. If they can't prove that there are no damages. It doesn't matter who they swayed or did not. Again, to be damages they are going to have to prove that the agreement would have gone through if PN were never in the picture. The damages are about the agreement not who PN swayed or didn't, they are about why the agreement was not signed and moNey not lent. They have a very tough case here.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.