Firstly let me thank you for reaching out to =DSE- and meeting up. A frank and serious discussion between corporation leadership is always less costly and 'messy' than a protracted legal battle.
We did not come to an agreement Miss Burton. Yet we did make progress. I put to you some forward-focused scenarios to potentially work on in an effort to sorting out the issue.
1) =DSE- buys *USI* out by compensating them for the core upgrade put in to SBC. Compensation has already been put forward in earlier correspondence but was financial compensation only. Why does *USI*want two massive storage POB's in Texas anyway? =DSE would have full ownership of SBC. =DSE- would compensate *USI* with a core upgrade by supplying the materials and costs. Think of the benefits of a new operational base for *USI* operation.(win-win)
2) *USI* compensates =DSE- by supplying a core upgrade for =DSE-'s new base, Old Trafford. This is both fair, reasonable and constructive. *USI* would have had to do the same if they up-cored SBC, and they don't have to worry about the storage modules (four of them) as =DSE- would see this as a significant gesture of good-will. (win-win). Nicole you did suggest something along the lines that *USI* could supply a core upgrade but =DSE- would need to foot the bill for supplies, which is a good idea but not totally fair nor reasonable. This is probably a solution that should be worked on.
3) Seek an arbitration ruling that =DSE- has genuine rights to their chattels and plant in SBC and they can dismantle/remove what they had constructed (lose-lose).
4) Take legal action. A bloody mess in the courts of Liberty. No one wants this, but...