Umm, at first sight the text above (which was written a couple of weeks ago and comes from earlier in the current thread) doesn’t seem to fit with what’s stated in the timeline document which makes clear that the Board - of which Jack, as a Non-executive Director, is a member - knew, in advance of its vote on whether to proceed, that legal action had already been initiated.IM Jack Rudd wrote:Let me be clear about my involvement here:
1. When I voted in favour of the White & Case action, I was working on the assumption that it was an action that had yet to be initiated.
2. When the discrepancy in times was brought to my attention by Alex McFarlane, I immediately checked the times for myself and then forwarded Alex's message to the Board for comment.
(The timeline document tells us, for example, that CJdM forwarded documents - including a copy of the Statement of Appeal - to the Board on 24 February and then that the Board, at its meeting on 26 February, “discussed the documents received and expressed surprise that legal action at CAS appeared to have been initiated without the ECF’s authorityâ€. The timeline also says that on 27 February, “AF wrote to CJdM expressing the Board’s surprise and concern and asking him to comment on the apparent initiation of legal actionâ€.)
I’m sorry to put you on the spot Jack, but would you like to comment? Could it be that you weren’t up-to-speed with events – perhaps you’d not been copied on correspondence (including the internal minutes of the Board meeting which took place on 26 February)? Or is there some other explanation?