Citizens of Suburbia
@citizensuburbia.bsky.social
Run With The Dogs Tonight
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
2/2
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
November 20, 2024 at 9:12 AM
2/2
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
You haven't.
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
November 20, 2024 at 9:11 AM
You haven't.
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
I did not.
I made a statement & he challenged it, so I backed it up. The 4 queries back up my statement. He responded they are all addressed in his article. I have indicated they aren't. I believe confidentiality has to be resolved to share terms & reach a conclusion.
I made a statement & he challenged it, so I backed it up. The 4 queries back up my statement. He responded they are all addressed in his article. I have indicated they aren't. I believe confidentiality has to be resolved to share terms & reach a conclusion.
November 20, 2024 at 9:22 AM
I did not.
I made a statement & he challenged it, so I backed it up. The 4 queries back up my statement. He responded they are all addressed in his article. I have indicated they aren't. I believe confidentiality has to be resolved to share terms & reach a conclusion.
I made a statement & he challenged it, so I backed it up. The 4 queries back up my statement. He responded they are all addressed in his article. I have indicated they aren't. I believe confidentiality has to be resolved to share terms & reach a conclusion.
2/2
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
November 20, 2024 at 9:12 AM
2/2
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
See 2.
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Not addressed. Do you know what ACap appealed?
You haven't.
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
November 20, 2024 at 9:11 AM
You haven't.
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?) - Not addressed by your article.
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
- Your article indicates Leadenhall still needs to be "fully apprised" & A-Cap "not responded to basic requests". Why do you think that is? 🤔
1/2
You do not understand the point of this thread.
November 20, 2024 at 9:05 AM
You do not understand the point of this thread.
So:
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?)
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?)
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
November 20, 2024 at 3:37 AM
So:
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?)
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
1. Has NDA/Confidentiality agreed? (Did TFG consent?)
2. If yes, did Leadenhall review?
3. If yes, did Leadenhall raise objection or not? If not >> what now?
4. Or, did Court consider ACap's last appeal?
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
Ok, so - have the terms been disclosed? IE did ACAP resolve confidentiality to reveal?
November 20, 2024 at 1:51 AM
Ok, so - have the terms been disclosed? IE did ACAP resolve confidentiality to reveal?
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
Again - did they resolve the confidentiality part to enable Leadenhall to review?
November 20, 2024 at 1:52 AM
Again - did they resolve the confidentiality part to enable Leadenhall to review?
Again - did they resolve the confidentiality part to enable Leadenhall to review?
November 20, 2024 at 1:52 AM
Again - did they resolve the confidentiality part to enable Leadenhall to review?
Ok, so - have the terms been disclosed? IE did ACAP resolve confidentiality to reveal?
November 20, 2024 at 1:51 AM
Ok, so - have the terms been disclosed? IE did ACAP resolve confidentiality to reveal?
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
Right. Glad we established that. So, the question is: if the NDA dispute has not been resolved (has it?) how will Leadenhall review the terms (have they?).
November 20, 2024 at 1:50 AM
Right. Glad we established that. So, the question is: if the NDA dispute has not been resolved (has it?) how will Leadenhall review the terms (have they?).
Right. Glad we established that. So, the question is: if the NDA dispute has not been resolved (has it?) how will Leadenhall review the terms (have they?).
November 20, 2024 at 1:50 AM
Right. Glad we established that. So, the question is: if the NDA dispute has not been resolved (has it?) how will Leadenhall review the terms (have they?).
I provided the filings that backed up my post - namely that there is a bone of contention around confidentiality. You have not shown me where that is wrong.
November 19, 2024 at 4:56 PM
I provided the filings that backed up my post - namely that there is a bone of contention around confidentiality. You have not shown me where that is wrong.
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
1. I have characterised the filings, which is public information. Please show me where I have wrongly characterised the filings.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
November 19, 2024 at 4:12 PM
1. I have characterised the filings, which is public information. Please show me where I have wrongly characterised the filings.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
1. I have characterised the filings, which is public information. Please show me where I have wrongly characterised the filings.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
November 19, 2024 at 4:12 PM
1. I have characterised the filings, which is public information. Please show me where I have wrongly characterised the filings.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
2. As for it not being the full picture - it is the full picture as far what I stated - because of 1). Again, show me where it isn't.
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
Subsequent filing made by A CAP pleads to the court to expedite matters with a desdline requested of March 2025. So debate centres on was it 1. fair to injunct the deal 2. If terms had to be revealed to court done so under seal 3. Leadenhall needed to sign NDA (all per filings)
November 19, 2024 at 2:37 PM
Subsequent filing made by A CAP pleads to the court to expedite matters with a desdline requested of March 2025. So debate centres on was it 1. fair to injunct the deal 2. If terms had to be revealed to court done so under seal 3. Leadenhall needed to sign NDA (all per filings)
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
See attached filings to that effect (highlighted in yellow). A-CAP & Leadenhall weren't able to agree an NDA. Documents were sent to Court under seal. A further appeal made by A-Cap on an expedited decision on transaction by March 2025 as its causing "harm"
November 19, 2024 at 2:33 PM
See attached filings to that effect (highlighted in yellow). A-CAP & Leadenhall weren't able to agree an NDA. Documents were sent to Court under seal. A further appeal made by A-Cap on an expedited decision on transaction by March 2025 as its causing "harm"
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
All information above h/t Gregory Cordell on twitter (worth a follow)
November 19, 2024 at 2:38 PM
All information above h/t Gregory Cordell on twitter (worth a follow)
All information above h/t Gregory Cordell on twitter (worth a follow)
November 19, 2024 at 2:38 PM
All information above h/t Gregory Cordell on twitter (worth a follow)
Subsequent filing made by A CAP pleads to the court to expedite matters with a desdline requested of March 2025. So debate centres on was it 1. fair to injunct the deal 2. If terms had to be revealed to court done so under seal 3. Leadenhall needed to sign NDA (all per filings)
November 19, 2024 at 2:37 PM
Subsequent filing made by A CAP pleads to the court to expedite matters with a desdline requested of March 2025. So debate centres on was it 1. fair to injunct the deal 2. If terms had to be revealed to court done so under seal 3. Leadenhall needed to sign NDA (all per filings)
See attached filings to that effect (highlighted in yellow). A-CAP & Leadenhall weren't able to agree an NDA. Documents were sent to Court under seal. A further appeal made by A-Cap on an expedited decision on transaction by March 2025 as its causing "harm"
November 19, 2024 at 2:33 PM
See attached filings to that effect (highlighted in yellow). A-CAP & Leadenhall weren't able to agree an NDA. Documents were sent to Court under seal. A further appeal made by A-Cap on an expedited decision on transaction by March 2025 as its causing "harm"
Reposted by Citizens of Suburbia
If they had agreed an NDA or got the court had sealed the documents, then Leadenhall would be reviewing the terms, no?
November 19, 2024 at 9:14 AM
If they had agreed an NDA or got the court had sealed the documents, then Leadenhall would be reviewing the terms, no?