OK M aug59 I understand your point very clearly and agree with your conditions. If in such unfortunate event as a refusal of concession (and in case if the management of the Beowulf going to be unable to react quickly and appropriately) I and my legal adviser will be more than ready to act and find the best way of getting full compensation all of my financial as well as moral losses. I have no any doubts that my adviser fully capable to get this result for me from those who caused these losses. And on the top of overall compensation will be as bonus your apologies. Atb.
Mr M, I disagree with you, that’s perhaps not surprising. I think you missed the point again. I will try to shorten this, in the interest of everyone.
Firstly, without further comment I simply have to accept your opinion of my posts as being nonsense and uncompromising. Many honest opinions do come over that way. However, I attach no pride or satisfaction in this respect.
Now down to the issue of topic. That’s your possible legal action. If my recall is correct you have said, that you are considering legal action against the Swedish Government, with the charge of intentional destruction of BEM (fair?). I have since said that, it is a non-starter. I should confirm, if that is at all necessary, I have received no formal legal training.
The reasons for my ‘non-starter’ comments are this. ….. Who exactly do you think has a legal obligation for the duty of care at Beowulf Mining? This would include, first identifying, then initiating any actions necessary to protect against obvious risks that potentially carries unknown consequences, and could possibly jeopardise any future actions by the Company. Who exactly could become the most valuable expert witness for the defence if they considered it to be, the absolutely necessary action, in order to execute these duties? Who exactly could face a charge of dereliction of duty by shareholders if they failed to act decisively and correctly in any such situation?
Anyway in the interest of ‘compromise’. None of the above will apply. Because, I don’t believe that you have any intentions of such. If you ever take legal action against the Swedish Government for the wilful destruction of BEM, I will retract all, and apologise unreservedly. Atb
I have no doubt that you too the person who clever enough and can make good posts, including with the nice music. But sometimes it is very surprising how uncompromising your judgments can be. Sorry, but I very well know from my own experience that the less the people's knowledge about the subject the less their doubts that they could be very wrong. And unfortunately you are showing now the same attitude by writing very confidently an absolute nonsense, by mixing together whatever you want and without any logical connections. Firstly how you can know if my threats of legal action empty or not? Incredible! And what it means "against a Sovereign State"? Do you really want to say that I as investor or being just ordinary person cannot initiate and win a legal action against any Sovereign State? If so, than you know nothing about International Business and Commercial Law despite of my previous attempt enlighten you on this matter. Except, please remember there are real and very big differences amongst the people. Someone can very easily accept the miserable situation where they have thrown. Whereas others will fight and get what they want. And that's all what I would like to tell in respond to your last post. Atb
Mr M, just to help you, I pay little attention to your posts. As some rightly say, this board is only a talking shop. So, I talk! From the outset your posts demonstrate someone, with good intellect and who is articulated. However, with an ‘apparent’ lack of good judgment … (continuous, empty threats of legal action against a Sovereign State, armed with only flimsy evidence at best). … That’s conflict within. That’s a paradox, and that is what got my attention. Any such problems I have for myself over any of this, are mine only to solve. Indeed, I have long ago. Atb
Thanks. We now know more though, insofar as the CAB's deadline date for its response to the MI questions. The wheels are in motion, and since the return to work after the summer holidays, the MI hasn't sat on its hands. That is a positive. We can now look forward to the date and know that additional action will definitely occur following its expiration.
We cannot avoid nor bypass these processes Manro, and have to respect them, even though outside of Sweden such processes may have long since been concluded.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.