I'm no expert on Texan law but surely where an injunction (or TRO here) is granted on an ex parte basis (i.e. only the person looking for the order appears in court) the applicant is expected to divulge all material facts to the judge. Failing to disclose the London court order is fairly shameless and is effectively lying by omission to the court.
If Hicks wants to sue RBS, Broughtan et al he needs to do so in an English court, he wont get anywhere in Texas.
What he is really hoping for is to blow smoke up NESV's
and hope they will be rattled and pull out. However, the TRO is losely worded and there's no doubt NESV have already set up a purchase vehicle - i.e. a new English company - to purchase the club on their behalf and this will probably not come within the terms of the TRO and can go ahead with the purchase.




