Otis
Well-Known Member
here is the rest of what the judge said:
135. I have no doubt that all of the witnesses who gave oral evidence are honest people,
none of whom is deliberately lying or attempting to mislead the court except that I do
have some reservation in the case of Ms Seppala which I come to in a moment. They do,
however, have different recollections of certain events and have very different
perceptions of the events as they unfolded.
138. Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. In making my general
comments above, I said that no-one was deliberately lying. But I fear Ms Seppala has a
distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings
in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a “spin”
(I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants’ case. She is
also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her
the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by
her) that Mr Wallace had “continually” represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks
had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also
recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as
I conclude, take place (namely a conversation with Mr Wallace “in a small room” and Mr
Olin reading and explaining a position paper in New York on 11 January 2005). She is, I
am quite sure, an astute and effective business woman. I totally reject her description of
herself as naïve. I am quite sure that she was closely involved in developments as the
representative of SISU as a Committee Creditor. But she had many other business
matters on her mind and when it came to producing her witness statement and giving her
evidence.
Yet, Thorninmyside chooses to believe what she says and calls Hoffman all but a liar. :thinking about:
