Special attention must be paid to acts with negative

[mahbubamim077]

Why was it not operating at full capacity? Why are the numbers above the levels of similar companies that operate in the same market? What are the expansion decisions based on? Why were the resources from the cash or investment heading directed to this or that? Yes: even estimates are questionable and must be justified when it comes to joint assets, particularly at sensitive times (the proximity of dissolution) and with results that directly impact the rights and interests of the joint owner.

More than that, it would be better if, based on what was collected, what bulk sms uae was heard, and the justifications requested and provided (or not), the Judiciary defined, for each point, the burden of proof. This is outside our system, but it would be the best translation of caution in fulfilling the jurisdictional function. And we have already seen it happen in arbitration proceedings (in Business Law , let us clarify; nothing to do with Family Law, an area in which we do not practice): at the end of the investigation, the arbitrators listed a series of points that were not clarified throughout the investigation, up to that point, they indicated the state of their understanding of the points highlighted and made some inversions of the burden of proof: such and such and such points were not entirely clear.

This and this and this point in the direction alleged by the plaintiff and the burden of proof is being inverted because, as a corporate administrator, it is up to the defendant to prove the regularity of acts that appear not to be. A fantastic decision for not presenting the event as a game, but as a means to the best solution to the conflict and, thus, giving each person what is theirs. Taking the armadillo out of its hole and making it contribute, if it has the elements to do so. If it does not, it proves that the elements that allowed it to be presumed against it were true.