We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
@Panman, actually I am not 100% wrong. I maybe did a lot more due diligence (on behalf of various third party litigation funds) for the claim of AST vs Slovenia than a lot of others did. Hence aware of which litigation funds provided non-binding offers to finance the costs of the claim before subsequently pulling the non-binding offer. And which third party litigation funds then possibly stepped in. As I suggested, maybe it would be worthwhile to ask the BoD of AST to clarify if a third party is financing the costs of the claim, or maybe not. Logically, what law firm would take a case that is 3-5 years from start of the arbitration process to any recovery & only work on 'no win, no fee'? Who pays the ICSID fees (which are not the same as the costs of the arbitrators)? Who pays for the costs of the independent expert witnesses? Who pays for the asset tracing reports? Ball park, an ICSID claim will cost the claimant anywhere between USD $3 million if using a small law firm + independent experts + asset tracing (Enyo are not magic circle) up to $9 million if using a 'blue chip' law firm + relevant independent experts, asset tracing etc. If you think Enyo are taking at least $3 million+ of 'work in progress' onto their balance sheet for a case that will take several years to reach an outcome, then you may have more of an insight into the balance sheet of Enyo than many others do. Alternatively, the costs for Enyo plus all the other costs for an ICSID arbitration claim are met by a third party funder. Typically, a funder asks for the greater of (i) Return of Committed Capital (X) + 3X (notice committed capital rather than capital drawn down) or (ii) Return of Committed Capital + a percentage of any successful award. And the financing departments at law firms don't typically allow law firms to run cases for 3-5 years which are 'no win, no fee'. The arbitrator appointed by Slovenia is the same arbitrator that ruled in favour of Russia or the Yukos expropriation case, which has run for years & years with no payments made. Perhaps I am naive, but with friends & relatives who work in arbitration, I would be surprised if Enyo lawyers were comfortable with taking the 'no win no fee' risk based upon the profile of a very well respected arbitrator who was nominated by Clifford Chance representing Slovenia. Following the logic, it possibly makes sense that AST + Enyo decided to involve third parties so that Enyo is working on a Contingency Fee Agreement which is not the same as a Damage Based Agreement. Maybe ask the BoD of AST to provide clarification.
@Panman...how about I name the previous litigation funder that provided a funding agreement that had not yet been signed by the funder when JP made the press release, and I also provide the name of the litigation funder (USA based) that is currently financing the costs of the AST claim. I finance hydrocarbon disputes for a living (the 'pet' in PetTader comes from petroleum) and I conducted all the due diligence on the claim, for the funder that pulled out, and was replaced by the litigation funder that is currently financing the claim. Hence, a litigation funder IS financing tje costs of the claim and Enyo Law IS NOT working on no win no fee, if you want to discuss with Parsons & Co why they have made statements that are not correct, be my guest.
We’ll have to see how this pas about ..but I wouldn’t hold your breath or you are likely to faint and the very least
Whole agreement..
30 May 2022
Ascent Resources plc
("Ascent" or the "Company")
Completion of "No win No fee" Damages Claim Funding
Ascent Resources Plc (LON: AST), the onshore Caribbean, Hispanic American and European focussed energy and natural resources company, is delighted to announce its official entry into a binding damages-based agreement - essentially a "no win no fee" funding arrangement - to appoint Enyo Law LLP ("Enyo") to pursue the Company's Energy Charter Treaty ("ECT") and UK-Slovenia Bilateral Investment Treaty ("BIT") arbitration claim against the Republic of Slovenia.
Enyo - the specialist arbitration and litigation legal firm who filed both of the Notice of Disputes on behalf of the Company and represented it in last year's pre-arbitration negotiations with the Republic of Slovenia - will be advancing the disbursements which are expected to be incurred in the pursuit of the claim and will only be paid out of a portion of the proceeds of the arbitration in the event of a successful damages award or execution of a binding settlement agreement (if achieved sooner).
The closing of this funding allows the Company to securely initiate the arbitration proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia in relation to the significant damages by the Company's Slovenian investment as a result of Slovenia's breaches of the protections established by the ECT and BIT, including, inter alia the prohibition of expropriation, the guarantee that the investments would be accorded fair and equitable treatment and Slovenia's guarantee that the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of the investments would not be impaired by arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory measures.
Notwithstanding the size of the Company's damages, in its view, having increased (for reasons including the increased gas price and the consequences of the recent legislative changes in Slovenia) and remaining significantly in excess of a hundred million Euros, it should be cautioned that in the event the Company is successful in its claim any amount actually received by the Company may be significantly lower.
Andrew Dennan, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
"Today's completion of the 'no win, no fee' damages based agreement allows the Company to immediately advance its material damages claim against the Republic of Slovenia in an international forum, as we seek redress for shareholders after many years of frustration, arbitrary decision-making against the Company's investment and delays being imposed on the project. This impact has recently been amplified with our investment effectively being expropriated by virtue of the new amendments to the mining law which specifically target the destruction of our full investment value.
We are delighted to have secured this arrangement on behalf of our shareholders and which now positions Ascent's equity holders with material upside exposure to a claim seeking damages of several hundred mil
No PetTrader the only thing I found was that you're 100% WRONG.
Can understand you trying that one, there's not much of a bear case here now they've won the cases against their partners and have a no win no fee arrangement with ENYO but no not true at all.
Would have to say good try at trolling but no brucie bonus for that one..
30 May 2022
Enyo - the specialist arbitration and litigation legal firm who filed both of the Notice of Disputes on behalf of the Company and represented it in last year's pre-arbitration negotiations with the Republic of Slovenia - will be advancing the disbursements which are expected to be incurred in the pursuit of the claim and will only be paid out of a portion of the proceeds of the arbitration in the event of a successful damages award or execution of a binding settlement agreement (if achieved sooner).
@Panman, I think you will find that the lawyers at Enyo are not fronting all the expenses themselves. Another inaccurate statement by the BoD at AST. If you remember, back when JB was CEO and JP had just arrived as chairman, JP put out a statement about a third party funder. Which was immediately withdrawn after the potential funder threatened to press charges relating to securities fraud (pumping the share price up when there was no binding funding agreement in place)if the statement was not withdrawn. Maybe there is a third party litigation fund financing all of the costs since Enyo became legal advisors. Maybe not. But for sure, AST should update shareholders if others are, or are not, paying the costs of Enyo.
No its not there's no stick at all its simply a court case run and paid for by a very professional set of lawyers who are willing to front all the expenses themselves as they obviously believe they can win,
The only part AST (or more accurately your nemesis Parsons) are responsible for now is distributing funds which the RNS has addressed very nicely.
The old carrot and stick method of trying to get some interest in a life style company! That has shafted it’s long term investors . Long ago .. And now is offering to distribute funds it currently
Doesn’t and may never have. (win)A typical Parson’s jam tomorrow nonsense…imho
Surprised at the amount they want to distribute to shareholders. 49% of any win is massive imho, granted they have to win but they do have a habit of winning cases starting to build so very happy to continue holding and see what happens down the line.
You also simply repeated a previous post of mines. Hence why you are simply found out. Go do yourself and move on. Really unfortunate that there is the manipulation of this poster.
Annoying as I used to post on PRD before and you mention them, as if to aling yourself.
To others do not ignore Spoondulicks- check their posting history and what has been posted.
Spondulicks- Noticed for a new poster you have just done a total of 11 post all of which are 11 new posts on 25th November. These posts appear to repeat or give various ramping and de-ramping / repeat postings. You have been found out..... jog on.
Generally avoid posting in LSE due to trolls. Our loss is definitely a gain. I am afraid for Echo - this appears to being a sell off with their new CEO (for Echo) who knows how to do solvency (due to his/they/that/whatever) history. AST seems to have rid itself of a director who would be perfect for selling them up for maximum value - they no longer need them / him / her - their skills have been moved on. This is due to their history. Think this company has no need for a director (do your own research - very basically) that is needed to get money from a failing company. I am afraid for all Echo holders - the new CEO should have a great package (see history).
AST seems to no longer require such a instrument. Just saying. Just a old boys thoughts. I will probably not poet again for 6 to 36 konths so trolls are free to kick me or love me.
FYI. Funsay Sunday afternoon beers are the best. DYOR.
I do think AST has massive upside - might a while but within 12 months -ish.
And Cuba has been all but forgotten. Paid a lot of money for nothing.
Other than to manipulate the stock price and fill the pockets of those close to the board.
Silently slipped into nowhere.
That fiasco alone would be enough to get rid of most BODs.
While all the current noise is about the Slovenia situation, it is a nice and convenient distraction for the BOD regarding AST's metals strategy which we are led to believe is a key strategic focus for the business.
In 2 years, nothing whatsoever has materialised. We are now at the point in the year when the excuses about holidays etc can be used and before we know it Spring 24 will be here.
What a disgrace the overall management has been. I suggest that AST get some full time leaders in instead of these part time jokers on ridiculous salaries.
Will this nightmare of an investment ever turn around instead of endless talking and no action!!
Was it ever the responsibility of AST to submit an EIA? I would have thought it was the responsibility of the project operator, which ironically a company part owned by the Slovenian government...
I do not, and have not from the very beginning, believed AST will win their case against Slovenia for one important reason.
Slovenia DID NOT prevent AST from fracking. When AST applied for the permit, they were told that the government would not approve their permit without and environmental impact assessment.
Instead of hurrying and doing an EIA, AST twiddled their thumbs until a new law against any fracking was put in place.
The defense will surely show that it was AST who caused the delay in the permitting of the fracking.
I said at the time that AST should have rushed ahead with the EIA for the entire field, but CH had already left and the JB board had no interest in improving the company.
I would be amazed if AST was to win the case.
Generally avoid posting in LSE due to trolls. Our loss is definitely a gain. I am afraid for Echo - this appears to being a sell off with their new CEO (for Echo) who knows how to do solvency (due to his/they/that/whatever) history. AST seems to have rid itself of a director who would be perfect for selling them up for maximum value - they no longer need them / him / her - their skills have been moved on. This is due to their history. Think this company has no need for a director (do your own research - very basically) that is needed to get money from a failing company. I am afraid for all Echo holders - the new CEO should have a great package (see history).
AST seems to no longer require such a instrument. Just saying. Just a old boys thoughts. I will probably not poet again for 6 to 36 konths so trolls are free to kick me or love me.
FYI. Funsay Sunday afternoon beers are the best. DYOR.
I do think AST has massive upside - might a while but within 12 months -ish.
Wander, looks like our loss is echo's gain (contentious assertion perhaps).
No the ECT claim WONT go up in a puff of smoke if they withdraw from the ECT.
All you need to verify for yourself is to google “Energy charter treaty sunset clause”
20 years the obligation sits around for! Maybe you should call Enyo Law and inform them of their misguided due diligence on the claim? lol!!
Even if a withdrawal the terms of the membership would be like coverd by the EEC its an EEC membership packt. like Brexit you cant just walk away, you know what iI mean Borris.
Why do you think withdrawal likely? If it's really likely, then why is the duration of claim relevant? Is this true insight or merely deramp?
Lash when is the record date for share holders. .?
If The EU, or specifically Slovenia, withdraw from the ECT (Energy Charter Treaty) which seems likely, then AST’s claim will disappear in a puff of smoke.
Withdrawing or not from the ECT will not change the fact that dispute settlement in favour of the Investor does not guarantee a government paying out.
If you look at the Investment Dispute Settlement Indicator (ISDI) claims can be pending for decades. There is no real mechanism for ensuring governments pay out if they are found against.
Best bet here is to trade on the current wave of optimism but as with all “trading” strategies, the trick is to get the timing right.
Not much to fear with this co regarding placings.ie:-
No Discount and warrants at a large premium
04 April 2023
The Company has today raised total gross new equity proceeds of £0.4 million by way of issue of 13,333,333 new ordinary shares of 0.5 pence each ("Placing Shares"), to existing shareholders, at a price of 3 pence per Placing Share ("Placing Price"), being Friday's closing bid price as reported by the London Stock Exchange (the "Fundraising"). Subject to shareholder approval, each Placing Share shall have one warrant attached to it giving the holder the right to exercise the warrant into one new share of the Company by paying a warrant exercise price of 5 pence per new warrant share at any time in the next two years
Following Admission of the Placing, the Company will have 165,751,348 Ordinary Shares in issue,
Followed by the more impressive investment at a 35% premium with warrants set even higher which pushed the sp up c. 35%last month.
03 October 2023
Strategic Investment
In support of the collaboration, MBD has agreed to subscribe directly for £1,500,000 in new equity via a direct subscription (the "Subscription") at 3.5 pence per new share (the "Issue Price"), being an approximate 35% premium to the closing bid price of 2.6 pence on 2 October 2023
That along with their tendency to win their court cases would seem to be one of their strong points.
Hope you’ve all voted against the issue of equity. Don’t let these overpaid crooks continue this circus.