Okada Manila occupation not overturned, case sent to appeal

Kazuo Okada’s side is for now able to stay in occupation of the Okada Manila casino resort in the Philippine capital, after a panel of the country’s Supreme Court declined either to overturn a “status quo ante order” (SQAO) regarding the board of a company set up to run the resort, or specifically to rule against the way Mr Okada’s side had interpreted the order as permission for physical takeover.

Instead, the court’s statement of August 10 – filed on Wednesday (August 17) – said the merits of the arguments put by opposing sides in the matter would be referred to the country’s Court of Appeal. That body must, within 30 days of receiving the resolution from the Supreme Court, report back on the matter.

Entities linked to Japanese conglomerate Universal Entertainment Corp and to Tiger Resort, Leisure and Entertainment Inc (TRLEI), firms founded by Mr Okada but from which he was ousted in June 2017, accused of fraud, had petitioned against Mr Okada’s physical takeover of Okada Manila on May 31.

They argued that an April 27 Supreme Court order to restore the board of TRLEI to how it was before Mr Okada was ejected, was not a green light for his occupation of the gaming resort premises.

The Supreme Court said in its August 10 finding that the status quo ante order “was properly issued in accordance with law and jurisprudence”.

The bench observed that while the Universal Entertainment side “questions the propriety of issuing the SQAO, claiming that it was issued on the basis of Kazuo’s blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations,” the court considered that “the contentions have no merit”.

It also stated that claims that the occupation of Okada Manila by Mr Okada’s side amounted to causing a “chilling effect on foreign investments and alleged serious damage to shareholders,” were regarded by the court as “speculative and unsubstantiated”.

But the court did say the status quo ante order “must be implemented strictly based on the language of the order and in the context of the nature of an SQAO, i.e., to restore the parties to the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things that preceded the controversy.”

The court added that “disruption is never the intent of the SQAO”.

Source: https://www.ggrasia.com/okada-manila-occupation-not-overturned-case-sent-to-appeal/