Why didn’t Stormy sue to set aside the arbitrator’s ruling on the ground that the LLC (as opposed to Trump) had no standing to seek relief?
5.1.3 only gives DD not the LLC the chance to seek ex party relief. DD not a party to this TRO. I was speaking of arbitrator saying contract gave this EXPLICIT righthttps://twitter.com/jeffreynye/status/971608925874343936 …
-
-
-
i just asked (don't remember) if EC was signatory to NDA. do you remember?
-
I believe EC was a signatory but paragraph 5.2 contemplates arbitration only btwn DD and PP.
-
huh. & liquidated damages went only to DD/Trump?
-
This is attractive.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You are missing the key term that ONLY DD and NOT EC is entitled to start arbitration and thus EC can’t get to the ADRS TRO process. Trying to rely on this invalid TRO obtained by EC without DD starting arbitration is sanctionably inappropriate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What’s more fun than watching attorneys argue the finer points of law!
@steve_vladeck@BobbyChesney YOU did this to me!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ah, I had just caught this mistake myself and was tweeting simultaneously.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe someone in the press should contact ADR Services and start demanding answers. Perhaps adverse media coverage would lead the esteemed Judge Connor to decide to re-read the contract and reconsider.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.