We refer to your letter of 6 November 2014. We have taken instructions from ADLSI. They reject outright the two themes •n your letter, name y that the Super A Assignment Agreement was c early never "dead" and that it has unreasonably withhe d its consent to such an assignment.
On the first question we have already set out in our letter of 30 October 2014 why we say that the
If you had had further documentation as between the present tenant
assignment document was "dead".
and the proposed assignee you ought to have provided it to us. We could then have put that to ADLSI as being the relevant assignment for consent purposes. We certainly did not receive such a document and we are instructed that neither did ADLSI. The Queen City Law letter is very pla•n •n saying that ADLSI would need to g've them rights materially d'fferent from the existing lease and ADLSI is not obliged to do this, Neither does it wish to. ADLSI has been very clear in communicating its position that changes to the lease terms would not be considered unless they were minor in nature. At no time has there been any acknow edgement from you or from Queen City Law that the proposed assignee accepted this and wished to proceed anyway, leaving ADLSI uncertain as to the exactly what were the terms of the proposal it was being asked to consider.
As to ADLSI unreasonably delaying its consent, we see it as important that you understand the unsat•sfactory history of all of this. From it you will see that from at least 19 May 2014, the tenant was in breach of the lease and has been given considerable time indulgences to repair those breaches.