Report comment

Re:2.09pm Regard Jackson's comments at the lecture, they are very odd. He seems to ignore the evidence and very much shy away from the obvious consequences of the decision. They strike me as simply an argument seeking to have neatness to his own proposals and it strives to pretend that its a litigation issue. This is an economic issue. He pretends that it was all OK in 2000 but he fails to support that argument with evidence. It was far from OK and malfeasant directors by and large got away with it. Its a bit better now and it was improving but this decision is a block to that improvement. Jackson has shown no insight into the fundamentals of what it takes to get a claim off the ground in insolvency and waves off criticism whilst obviously not understanding it. If it were that easy all IPs and most lawyers would have their noses in the trough in these hard economic times. The fact that mostly they do not ought to have caused Jackson to exercise some sort of caution.