XX XXXXXXX XXXXX Sample Clauses

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. It sounds as though there is going to -- you are going to then be -- if you are only serving evidence on Monday, the claimants will only receive it, obviously, by definition, on Monday. If we then have to have a discussion about, you know, where that takes us and further arrangements, it is rather unsatisfactory. MS DWARKA: I appreciate that, my Lord. I would hope arranging the necessary breaks for Xx Xxxxxxx might not be something too difficult to do, but I have not been privy to that part of the case at the moment, my Lord, so I don't really know what evidence we are putting. XX XXXXXX: My Lord, it is not particularly satisfactory, in circumstances where a month ago, on the second sitting day of the trial, Xx Xxxxx told your Lordship that medical evidence was in the course of being prepared. He said: XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Well, if it is indeed issued. So far, all I have been told is that there is an intention to issue it but it hasn't been issued. MS DWARKA: Noted, my Lord. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Now, how long do you think you will need to respond to the points which were made about the documents and the pleadings? XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Xx Xxxxx, how long do you think you will need? XX XXXXX: Well, my Lord, I can't know Xx Xxxxxxxxx'x mind but, myself, I would imagine between 10 and 20 minutes. I anticipate he will be of the same view. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: All right. Thank you. Right, we will come back to the pleading points and what I call the authenticity point on Monday morning. You said before, Ms Dwarka, that Xx Xxxxxxx would not be available until Tuesday? MS DWARKA: As I understand it, Xx Xxxxxxx cannot be in court on Monday. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Why is that? MS DWARKA: I don't know, my Lord. I have just been sent instructions by email about the position and I have just relayed the message to you. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Well, the cross-examination of the claimants' witnesses went rather shorter. MS DWARKA: Yes. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: That happens in trials. Therefore, Xx Xxxxxx was able to make his submissions about the pleadings and other related points this afternoon, so that accelerated things slightly. But there seems no reason why Xx Xxxxxxx, subject to the points about making appropriate accommodations and so on, should not be available on Monday afternoon, without there being an evidential basis for saying that he is not. It seemed, from what you are saying, that he would be available on Tuesday, so it seems unlikely that it can be a medical reason, which isn't part of...

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. What was the position at this time in relation to those companies? XX XXXXXX: I hope we can find out by going back to schedule 1 to the neutral statement of uncontested facts, which is in A1. It is the directors of LCF that we are looking for as at this date. It is going to be <A1/5> -- I'm going to say page 76. Let's have a look at page 76. No, it is page 70. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: So, at the date of that letter, which was in August -- XX XXXXXX: It is Xx Xxxxxxx. Only Xx Xxxxxxx. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: And then Xx Xxxxxx. XX XXXXXX: From 5 September. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Well, that document was, on the face of it, 6 September, the one which had the pictures. So, that would have included Xx Xxxxxx. That would have been correct. XX XXXXXX: Yes. But, in fact, the companies mentioned in the letter are not beneficially owned by Xx Xxxxxxx and Xx Xxxxxx. Bewl Holiday Homes was a Xxxx-Xxxxxxx company. Lakeview was -- I can't remember whether at this point we have moved from 75 per cent Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, 25 per cent Xxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxxxx, we say really Xxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxxxx, to the subsequent ratios of 71.25 per cent Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, 23.75 per cent Xxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxxxx, and 5 per cent Xx Xxxxxxx. But it is going to be one of those two iterations as at that time. Certainly, Xx Xxxxxxx -- we say XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Sanctuary? XX XXXXXX: We saw the chart. That one is, as at this date -- I'm going to have to go back. We saw Xx Xxxxxxx got the first 30 shares in Sanctuary -- well, certainly legal title to them on 25 June 2013, and he got a further 25 shares on 31 December 2013. So, I'm not entirely sure what was the position as at the date of that letter in respect of the other 50 out of 80 shares, which were in the two share certificates of 25 shares each, but it was presumably Xx Xxxxxxxx, who didn't resign as a director until December of that year, when he transferred some shares -- yes, that's right, we saw the December transfer of 25 shares was from Xx Xxxxxxxx to Xx Xxxxxxx. The other 25 -- I don't know, I'm afraid, whether it would have been Xxxx Xxxxxxx or Xxxx Xxxxxx as at the date of that letter, possibly Xxxx Xxxxxx. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: The other thing that letter seemed to refer to -- I'm only looking at it very quickly now, but it seemed to refer to those companies having given guarantees to SAFE. XX XXXXXX: Yes. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Was that something that was done? XX XXXXXX: I have certainly seen draft guarantees being circulated by email. I'm afraid I can't remember off the top ...

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. I take your point that there is no -- you make the very simple point that there is no mention of Xx Xxxxxxxx, but the question then will be whether what is pleaded is sufficient to bring this in. Are you content to continue on that basis? XX XXXXXXX: Absolutely, my Lord. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: So, I will take it as a standing point that you are not to be taken to have waived any objections you have to the pleadings by not intervening at this stage. XX XXXXXXX: Yes, I'm grateful for that clarification, my Lord. Indeed, there are several other areas which are similar to this, not least the Sanctuary and SAFE loan area, but I will deal with all of that in my opening. I'm grateful for the clarification. Thank you.

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Right. Thank you.

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. So there, there needs to be a correction in relation to that. What should that be? Can we tell? Should it be the difference between 16.3 million-odd and 1.097?

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Right. In relation to those descriptions, when it talks about interest and redemptions, is it your evidence that that is a reference to the interest and redemptions on the bonds or interest or repayment under the loans.

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. It is the same principle as we saw earlier on, and you say that carries on for all facility agreements. XX XXXXXX: Yes.

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. What's the position with regard to the obligations to pay off the loan by LUKI? Where is that, as it were, located? XX XXXXXX: That is still located with Lakeview Country Club Limited, which bears that obligation and owns the development land. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: There seemed to be some -- you just took me through these documents quite quickly, but there seemed to be something in the intermediate stage which talked about the assumption of the -- what was that? The assumption obligation by LV -- XX XXXXXX: To the Telos investors. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Is that what that was referring to? I didn't pick it up fully. In one of those emails - XX XXXXXX: I think it was <MDR00025338>. Let's see if it was that one or page 2. Was it this one or another one? XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: No, it was -- it might have been -- XX XXXXXX: We looked at -- XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: -- 12 August.

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. When you say the old ratios will apply to the Lakeview SPA, what you mean is the old ratios will apply to the consideration payable under that agreement? XX XXXXXX: Yes, sorry, I was abbreviating it too much. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: I see. XX XXXXXX: I hope this document makes it clearer. 16 July 2015, from Xx Xxxxxxxx to Xx Xxxx- Xxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxxx Xx Xxxxxx and Xx Xxxxxxx. He says: "I have amended the sale agreement for the sale of Lakeview to LTDG so that the total price is £2,105,263.15 which is divisible (if my maths is correct) between the shareholders:

XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Did it own the shares or did the individuals own the shares? XX XXXXXX: They were never issued. There were never any such shares. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Right. XX XXXXXX: But I will come to that in a moment. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Sorry, let me just remind myself. Okay, the simple point, you say, is that there were no shares. XX XXXXXX: So that's the first thing, the guarantee. The second thing is that London Group LLP executed a debenture in favour of LCF. That's <MDR00007514>. My Lord can see it is dated 29 April 2017. London Group LLP is the chargor. At page 25, we see what it charged. First: