On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Strongly object. Experimenting with the lack of a requirement to
>> consult the other partners has been the point of the AFO from day one.
>
> And the mere existence of this equity
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strongly object. Experimenting with the lack of a requirement to
> consult the other partners has been the point of the AFO from day one.
And the mere existence of this equity case shows that one partner
wasn't happy with that
Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> == Equity Case 2036 ==
>>
>>Murphy took all of the AFO's assets.
>
> Any comments from the parties to the AFO? As far as I can tell, this
> has been resol
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Murphy took all of the AFO's assets.
>
> Any comments from the parties to the AFO? As far as I can tell, this
> has been resolved equitably without arbitration by the courts, but I'd
> be more than happy to force the p
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == Equity Case 2036 ==
>
>Murphy took all of the AFO's assets.
Any comments from the parties to the AFO? As far as I can tell, this
has been resolved equitably without arbi
5 matches
Mail list logo