The document outlines arguments in favor of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Big Emperor case. It argues that PAGCOR and XION WEI lacked proper board resolutions or court orders to cancel the contract. It also argues that the contract remains valid and binding based on the constitution's contract clause, and that termination was not proper as there was still a 30 day remedy period under the contract terms.
The document outlines arguments in favor of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Big Emperor case. It argues that PAGCOR and XION WEI lacked proper board resolutions or court orders to cancel the contract. It also argues that the contract remains valid and binding based on the constitution's contract clause, and that termination was not proper as there was still a 30 day remedy period under the contract terms.
The document outlines arguments in favor of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Big Emperor case. It argues that PAGCOR and XION WEI lacked proper board resolutions or court orders to cancel the contract. It also argues that the contract remains valid and binding based on the constitution's contract clause, and that termination was not proper as there was still a 30 day remedy period under the contract terms.