I'd note that the most likely outcome if the ACC were to "lose" the motion on any issue is an opportunity to amend the Amended Complaint to address any deficiencies, with the date of original filing still being retained (important to address first to the courthouse rule). The only issue with this that I see is the 2/3 vote prerequisite. If the Court determines that was necessary to filing and did not occur, it COULD result in dismissal without the ability to cure, as the ACC would only have been able to file following the vote. It will be interesting to see if the Court deems ratification of the Amended Complaint by 2/3 vote to be sufficient to overcome that requirement, as the argument over materiality seems to fall in the favor of FSU.
Wasn't the initial ACC lawsuit simply asking the court to say an existing Grant of Rights was enforceable? No new business was being proposed or initiated. I wonder if this actually requires a vote of the membership.
If nothing else, I am enjoying the bejeebus out of pictures of distressed FSU fans in this series.
I'd note that the most likely outcome if the ACC were to "lose" the motion on any issue is an opportunity to amend the Amended Complaint to address any deficiencies, with the date of original filing still being retained (important to address first to the courthouse rule). The only issue with this that I see is the 2/3 vote prerequisite. If the Court determines that was necessary to filing and did not occur, it COULD result in dismissal without the ability to cure, as the ACC would only have been able to file following the vote. It will be interesting to see if the Court deems ratification of the Amended Complaint by 2/3 vote to be sufficient to overcome that requirement, as the argument over materiality seems to fall in the favor of FSU.
Wasn't the initial ACC lawsuit simply asking the court to say an existing Grant of Rights was enforceable? No new business was being proposed or initiated. I wonder if this actually requires a vote of the membership.