There was no ruling in the Guam Supreme Court today on whether correct procedures were followed in the DFS and Lotte/Guam Airport case.

Lotte Duty Free’s position was essentially objecting that some of the language references made at the time that temporary restraining order cases were being heard by previous Judge Michael Bordallo (July 17 and October 10) were ‘improper’. DFS originally brought the restraining order to try and prevent Lotte from moving into the duty free shop spaces at Guam Airport, but the motion was denied.

Making his case in court in a Pacific News Center filmed application earlier today (Guam time), Lotte’s Legal Counsel, Cesar Cabot said: “Lotte takes issue with certain language that’s contained in the TRO orders that were rendered by Judge Michael Bordallo dated July 17 and October 10 of last year.” He added that Lotte’s purpose in court today was to ask that these ‘extraneous, improper statements’ be removed from the court records.

Not surprisingly, DFS’ Attorney Maurice Suh took the opposite view however, arguing on a point of law that Lotte doesn’t have any right to make such a request and particularly considering it was the winning party when it came to the final airport concession award.

PCN FILMED COURT COVERAGE
The Pacific News Center has covered this case consistently, professionally and neutrally since it first began last year and its latest film footage covering key statements in the case today are significant and can be viewed on its website at the following link: http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43686:guam-supreme-court-hears-lotte-giaa-appeal-over-airport-concession-contract&catid=45:guam-news&Itemid=156

Meanwhile, The Pacific News Center reports that there was no ruling given to either party today, with Chief Justice Philip Carbullido advising the court that he was taking the matter under advisement. This effectively means that the judge is going to consider the matter, read the materials filed by both parties, have any legal issues that may arise – if any – clarified by experts and then make a judgment. This will include his view – which could be crucial to this case – on whether the previous judge had the legal authority to make the references he is alleged to have made.