America’s Cup, il punto di Alessandra Pandarese sull’udienza di New York
America's CupMascalzone LatinoVela 24 Febbraio 2009 Zerogradinord 0
America’s Cup – Milano – E’ stata pubblicata oggi sul sito di Mascalzone Latino un’intervista dell’avvocato Alessandra Panadrese in merito all’udienza svoltasi ad Albany lo scorso 10 febbraio davanti ai giudici della Corte d’Appello dello Stato di New York.
“Il 10 febbraio si è disputata l’udienza per la causa tra il Golden Gate Yacht Club e la Société Nautique de Genève. In rappresentanza di Mascalzone Latino c’era l’Avv. Alessandra Pandarese, general counsel del team italiano.
Mascalzone Latino è intervenuto nella querelle legale supportando la tesi del Golden Gate Yach Club per mezzo dell’amicus curie qui scaricabile“.
Di seguito è possibile ascoltare l’intervista all’Avv. Alessandra Pandarese, rilasciata al suo rientro in Italia. Audio courtesy Mascalzone Latino.
Come si è svolta l’udienza?
[audio:090212_AP_01.mp3]
Quali sono gli scenari possibili?
[audio:090212AP_02.mp3]
Cosa accade se vince il GGYC, cosa se vince la SNG?
[audio:09-02-12_AP_03.mp3]
La corte potrebbe dare torto a entrambi?
[audio:09-02-12_AP_04.mp3]
ALESSANDRA PANDARESE (MASCALZONE LATINO) COMMENTS LAST ORAL HEARING IN NY COURT
[Source Valencia Sailing] Our friend Pierre Orphanidis, editor of Valencia Sailing, published today an english translation of Alessandra Pandarese (Mascalzone Latino general counsel) interview.
“Mascalzone Latino published today on their website a brief interview with Alessandra Pandarese, their legal advisor, concerning the last oral hearing in the America’s Cup court case that took place two weeks ago in Albany. The interview was done in Italian and the translation is mine, meaning there could be some small errors or mistakes. Nevertheless, the general picture is crystal clear. Pandarese sees a victory for GGYC as the only positive outcome and hopes the judges decide in favor of the American yacht club.
Question: What is your view on the oral hearings?
Alessandra Pandarese: The times for oral arguments were very, very short and each of the 2 parts had 15 minutes available that were divided according to their plan. First of all, GGYC’s lawyer had 10 minutes then SNG’s and CNEV’s lawyers split their 15 minutes and finally, GGYC’s lawyer used her remaining 5 minutes for her closing arguments.
Time was so short that it was impossible to repeat written arguments and I think that during the audience there has been a barrage of questions from the judges who showed they had in-depth knowledge of the issue. The arguments concentrated on the key element, that is whether the prerequisites had to be satisfied when the challenge was presented and in particular whether the annual regatta had to have taken place before the challenge was presented. Obviously, Alinghi‘s position was the opposite and the questions focused mainly on these points. Still, the judges asked for clarifications regarding the mechanism in the America’s Cup with which challenges can become multiple challenges. In my view, GGYC’s defense showed in an efficient way that the mutual consent aspects are succedent and that the challenge must meet the prerequisites the moment it is received by the defender”.
To read full story click here.
No comments so far.
Be first to leave comment below.