@thehistoryguy You might want to cover what the Geneva conventions then had to say about it and why to put these in a more up-to-date historical context.
@sjhmorris@gilliantett@RobinWigg There's some logic to it in that Tier 1 is supposed to absorb loss on a going concern basis, whereas Tier 2 is intended only to absorb on a gone concern basis.
https://t.co/UKYVR6zILf
@PLAN9OS@sjhmorris There's one on Six (for all of them). It may be a case that UBS and the state are taking different lines though, which is why I'd be so interested to see the UBS explanation.
@sjhmorris Have you got a ref for that statement from UBS that there was no viability event triggered or where/when that was said?
I saw a reference to that having been said a few times yesterday but I cannot find the source and it would be helpful to see it.
@ahcastor Based on the press announcements, I think this was a red herring from the loosely worded article, and the judgments were given orally by the judge rather than handed down in writing. The audio tape gets transcribed and checked/edited by J hence time lag for publishing in writing.
@KyleSGibson@ahcastor But the claim is that they were orders made in respect of preliminary injunctive relief so they could be obtained quickly and in the sort of timescale you mention. I can't square that with the claim being issued in April but as I say maybe something is missing.
@KyleSGibson@ahcastor The QB in the citation means it was filed in the Queen's Bench Division. You'd need to make an application to that court to get the claim docs.
The timings are all over the place so maybe something is missing in terms of the reported March orders.