Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
That will likely be how it would play out @BlueBuxton, unfortunately we won’t be able to see the proceedings this time as they are taking place in person :/
@mountainous I suspect we won't hear about it even if Mooky & Co were unaware of HNS's excellent Barbara's social circle research. Mooky commenting back to me on email or via Scott, or Mr Steep to HNS, puts it on record in the form of an email which we saw used a lot during the trial. Any comments on it could be used against us during the appeal, however I wouldnt be surprised if it's kept quiet and brought up during the appeal itself?
@Wellington, I think the main concern are all the connections. There are just too many in number to give me confidence that this was a fully unbiased and fair ruling. Further, bias can be subconsciously applied if my understanding is correct, so even if Judge Conway did not have intent to make an unfair ruling (if that is what has taken place) then it may have happened inadvertently, hence why it is important to see what has happened.
No doubt that the information has now reached Mooky and other relevant individuals, and there will be discussion taking place as to how feasible this is from a legal perspective. Maybe we get news that the court has launched an investigation, or maybe we never hear about it again.
For the record, I don't think Conway is bent, just incompetent.
Her demeanour throughout the trial was of someone over her head.
I have much greater confidence on three judges hearing a case on considerably reduced grounds, aware that the precedent being set could be very dangerous for the health of the Canadian legal and financial system.
Although interesting detective work, I sincerely hope that Cineworld don't try and smear Conway's good name, because if there is a faster way to get the judicial system of Canada to close ranks and protect her and her judgement, then I’m unaware of it.
Regardless of the outcome it does give credence to the idea that’s been noted for a while that Judge Conway’s “novel” or “not traditional” judgement (that’s in the words of other lawyers commenting on the case ) seemed very one sided in its consideration and this new evidence gives rise to the potential that bias could have played a part
Either way it is very unlikely that the 3 appeal judges will have family members that are firm friends with Cineplex Board like Conway which is grounds for optimism as we get closer to the appeal that a more sensible result will come through
No problem Mountainous anything we can try to help the appeal :-)
@BlueBuxton, thanks for informing us :)
Big well done to yourself and @HNS for compiling this information and getting it sent off, let’s see what happens…
Thanks for the update, quick reply from Scott so hopefully it’s making its way up the chain quickly
@HNS & Mountainous, Scott has replied saying he has passed the email onto the relevant personnel within Cineworld :-)
That would be lovely Mountainous yes :-) I'll set my alarm for 8am to check it lol
Hey ho, for all we know we could get an RNS tomorrow morning titled ‘Update on Cineworld v Cineplex Litigation’ stating that we have reached an out of court settlement :)
Might be wishful thinking at this point, but here’s to hoping!
Yeah hope so Mountainous :-)
Indeed she was @BlueBuxton, likelihood is that if what has been found here is of any significance it would be discussed at a board meeting, so I think it will filter through to her eventually :)
No problem HNS, no harm in trying is there :-)
Well done Bb good to hear that’s done and dusted now they should have it sitting in their respective inbox’s for Monday morning.
It’s a slim chance but worth trying nonetheless
Just the Ashley one HNS it bounced back straight away so hopefully the others are OK by now
It's a shame as Ashley was very friendly towards myself and Mountainous
Good work BB - so was that error message for Ashley only or did the others bounce back too?
Guess it didn't like the HTML tags I'll try again
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.
Ashley.steel@cineworld.co.uk
@Mountainous, looks like pattern doesn't apply to Ashley hers got returned with error :-(
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.
@HNS & Mountainous, OK guys email and attachments sent to Scott, cc'd to Mooky, Ashley, Israel & Nisan :-)
Tegop - that is possible and I find it hard to believe with their resources they could have missed this - worth a punt to see what happens in case they did miss this
A conflict of interest if declared and if it was argued that it didn’t make a different can be considered acceptable and perhaps that was what happened but a family member having close ties to Cineplex board and execs seems very problematic to me
Just to be a contrarian, it is also possible that the CINE lawyers were aware of the link and decided that the idea of conflict of interest is immaterial to the case.
Either way, there is little to lose in pointing it out. I remember Investor relations replying to an enquiry about K2 shorting ahead of the results.
I won’t be too disappointed if we don’t get an immediate response. The evidence doesn’t lie and we are all using our common sense to see there is a strong conflict of interest here .
It may be that they decide to keep this in their back pocket for after the appeal particularly if they feel they have a strong chance to overturn the decision then face a retrial - either way I think being a fly on the wall when they are around the table discussing this next week would be fascinating
Thanks Mountainous :-)
@BlueBuxton, the usual format appears to be [first name].[last name]@cineworld.co.uk
So for example, Scott.brooker@cineworld.co.uk
Ashley.steel@cineworld.co.uk
Nisan.cohen@cineworld.co.uk
Israel.greidinger@cineworld.co.uk
Mooky.greidinger@cineworld.co.uk
And so on and so forth, that’s my understanding