Umm, at first sight the text above (which was written a couple of weeks ago and comes from earlier in the current thread) doesnâ€™t seem to fit with whatâ€™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, â€œdiscussed the documents received and expressed surprise that legal action at CAS appeared to have been initiated without the ECFâ€™s authorityâ€. The timeline also says that on 27 February, â€œAF wrote to CJdM expressing the Boardâ€™s surprise and concern and asking him to comment on the apparent initiation of legal actionâ€.)
Iâ€™m sorry to put you on the spot Jack, but would you like to comment? Could it be that you werenâ€™t up-to-speed with events â€“ perhaps youâ€™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?