It’s not just semantics. The actual specifics of who is what and differences between de facto and de jure have been important to this subject the entire time. It’s important to understanding how Reedy Creek Improvement District was originally conceived and worked. Now it is important to understanding who would be taking action against whom.
Interesting! The self-appointed editors of Wikipedia move fast!
So the first clause says it’s valid in perpetuity. The backup clause says in case that’s ruled invalid, then the Royal thing. If the rule against perpetuities is found to apply here, it would be in the form of how it’s always applied, which is a living person’s death plus 21 years. The way you’re reading it IS a perpetuity, or at least likely to be one.
abovethelaw.com
Lucky for Disney that Charles has four very young grandchildren!
abovethelaw.com
Right! I forgot about William and Kate's third!5
Here is the exact wording:
I think this was a fairly easy case to make from the start.
www.clickorlando.com
Probably to prevent risking from it being nullified altogether. I wonder what kind of compromise this would entail though.
Thank you. The article I quoted earlier didn't include the "living as of the date of this Declaration" bit, plus I was thrown by the reference to "the last survivor", which I mistakenly interpreted as referring to future generations. I see now that "the last survivor of the descendants" is meant to be understood as "the last surviving descendant".
They didn't. Members of the board openly stated in the news article I linked above that they "were upset the previous members didn't tell them and that they had to find out", the chair said he was "disappointed in Disney".
But also why would the new board be willing to compromise if they legitimately felt the agreement was an overreach and would not hold up. The new board has zero reason not to go to court if they honestly think they are in the right. Going to court doesn’t cost them anything.
People with unreasonable demands often say they want to compromise to appear more reasonable. They get to say they want to “compromise” and then when it doesn’t happen they blame the other party for not “compromising” which they wanted to do all along.Disney made last-minute deal with former Reedy Creek board giving company wide powers, new board says
"This essentially makes Disney the government," board member Ron Peri said.
The Board apparently is hoping to come to a compromise with Disney before legal action is taken. The contract prevents the new board from even amending it, why would they even bother to compromise.
Because it lets them claim they were trying to be “reasonable” and “compromise”. Disney did this big thing and they were willing to let them keep some of it if they could just talk about it.
