After a panel of the country’s Supreme Court declined to overturn a status quo ante order regarding the board of a company set up, Kazuo Okada’s side is for now able to stay in occupation of the Okada Manila casino resort in the Philippine capital.
The merits of the arguments put by opposing sides in the matter would be referred to the country’s Court of Appeal, according to the court’s statement of August 10. Within 30 days of receiving the resolution from the Supreme Court, that body must report back on the matter.
On May 31, entities linked to 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, petitioned against Mr Okada’s physical takeover of Okada Manila.
They claimed that Mr. Okada’s takeover of the gambling resort grounds was not authorized by a Supreme Court ruling issued on April 27 that restored the TRLEI board to its previous state before Mr. Okada was expelled.
The status quo ante order was properly issued in accordance with law according to the Supreme Court.
While the Universal Entertainment side questioned 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.
The court stated that the 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 “speculative and unsubstantiated”.
The court said that the status quo ante order must be implemented strictly based on the language of the order and the nature of an SQAO to restore the parties to the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things that preceded it.
The court stated that disruption is never the intent of the SQAO.
Criminal proceedings can be used to remedy this.
Criminal cases were filed against those involved in the May 31, 2022, incident in Okada Manila.
The Supreme Court stated: “While the merits of these cases do not concern us, they highlight that the parties are not without recourse, and that such recourse is beyond the issues before the court.”
The Supreme Court said there were factual issues which would have to be settled before the court could resolve the pending motions.
The Court of Appeal was directed to receive evidence on matters including the financial condition of TRLEI, as well as the alleged non-payment of landlord, suppliers and contractors by Mr Okada.
The court document referred to the entity as “Okada Manila International Inc”. The name of the entity to be listed had been changed to “UE Resorts International, Inc.” according to a press release on December 8, from U.S.-based 26 Capital Acquisition Corp.
This was done in order to better reflect the corporation’s expansion plans in Asia and other countries around the world, including the U.S.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines noted in its statement that Universal Entertainment purportedly intends to list OMI as a public company in the United States through the use of a special purpose acquisition company.
The transfer would cause TRLEI to lose 90 percent of its gross revenues and lead to its bankruptcy, rendering the recovery of his investments highly doubtful, if not impossible.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines refused to overturn astatus quo ante order regarding the board of a company set up to run the Okada Manila casino resort. The merits of the arguments made by the opposing sides would be referred to the country’s Court of Appeal.