Is there anything in Flybe2's argument with the CAA over the LHR slots... or some other piece of corporate communication... which somehow leads to a plausible case around continuity of the company from Flybe1 ?
I'm not a lawyer... but wondering if this is perhaps a bit of a tightrope whereby it is easy for somebody to accidentally say the wrong thing. There's an awful lot of obscure and surprising pieces of case law
Getting things legally watertight is not always easy