Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
This still remains a 50/50 . Best of All
The AH and ROI have to be concerned about what a Judicial review would reveal. Can they afford to find that a JR finds collusion and corruption between ROI and ICSID? Anything can happen, yet having agreed to a stay of costs and the process by which it was achieved due to ROI being obstructive. I would be very surprised if the AH would allow this appeal knowing that a JR would bury them.
Syric. I've gambled / bought a few more whilst on NEX. Took c.350k earlier this year which was a hell of a lot cheaper than my AIM ones. ShIt or bust, but today's events shows either how desperate or closely entwined with the annulment committee they are. If the committee accepts ROIs codshit, then I'm afraid the result is already known and we're finally sunk.
Sycric: I was going to but have been distracted by what in my opinion, is a better 'investment' (i.e. gamble) elsewhere ... where I have put all my remaining eggs. Which, as you know, is FRR.
Has anyone increased their holdings on NEX after moving from from LSE?
Benton: indeed.... Thanks for reposting this.
DJ Churchill Mining plc ICSID Arbitration - Annulment Proceedings Update TIDMCHL RNS Number : 9539K Churchill Mining plc 16 April 2018 NEX: CHL CHURCHILL MINING PLC ("the Company" or "Churchill") ICSID Arbitration - Annulment Proceedings Update On 4 August 2017, the Company announced that the ICSID Annulment Committee ("Committee") had advised the parties that the stay on enforcement of the Award of 6 December 2016 in ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and ARB/12/40 will continue pending a decision on the Company's Annulment Application, which is due to be heard on 16 and 17 July 2018. The Company wishes to advise that on Saturday 14 April 2018 the Republic of Indonesia filed an application to terminate the stay on enforcement of the Award granted by the Committee on 4 August 2017 and a request for security for costs. The Committee has invited the Company to provide its comments on Indonesia's application by 23 April 2018. The Company and its solicitors are currently reviewing Indonesia's application and the Company will provide its comments to the Committee by 23 April 2018 as requested. The Company will update the market on this review following the filing of its comments to the Committee. The Directors of the Company are responsible for the contents of this announcement. ENDS For further information, please contact:
Ditto . Best of All
Regards to the CHL shares, i have mine with IG. I cannot do anything with them, they don't use the NEX exchange. But as i am sitting on them i just thought i would leave them, cost me to transfer them haha. Only have 6,149 shares which now is worth like �141.43, one day i hope i will be pleasantly surprised.
ROI have tried to delay things but although CHL agreed to allow a move for the current disclosure to 9/4, they also insisted that the July date had to stand and it does.
would not want.......would want
I suspect the last thing that ICSID will want is a Judicial Review. I would not be surprised if the legal team for the ROI would not want to see a Judicial Review. Far too many witnesses that would have been called if Churchill's 'right to be heard' had been granted. The witnesses would have been able to prove due diligence had been undertaken and that forgery was not a claim that Churchill had been found guilty of, yet the state has admitted that its own insiders had been involved. ICSID will be wondering how they are going to square the circle on this as almost daily there is a drip feed of new information. The new information being that which was withheld by the ROI which if it had been disclosed in the hearing would have had an impact. Anyway 09/04 is for ROI to make their next disclosure, assuming they do not delay again.
I don't entirely agree with your position on this but you are entitled to your view. Anyway, let's be clear, this is currently a punt. The SP has been taken down from around 40p to 2.5p because of the ISCID ruling. Nobody should mistake this for any sort of standard 'investment'. The question is whether or not the ISCID will annul that previous ruling. If they do, then we are back to where we were when the SP was higher and with another chance to argue the case. The SP should reflect any movement in the position we currently hold IMO and that is what the 'gamble' is for me.
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. And yes you were right on the share price - I'd read the latest bid on the NEX page. I stand corrected. Having read through the page, it sounds like there's a chance however there's one thing to bear in mind. This is written by the party which feels it's been wronged. They're challenging the ruling because it's all finished if they don't. It is *going* to sound like there's a chance. So I would, respectfully, amend your assessment to: "The tribunal appear to have broken their own rules, therefore an annulment would seem highly possible.. according to Churchill's take on the situation." We need to remember, even if it comes off for us, that Churchill are the ones on the backfoot here, even if just for now. So don't get your hopes up just yet - because we all know the history here.
Interested in where you got the SP drop to 2p from? According to NEX the mid-price remained at 2.3p. 246,000 odd shares were bought with prices starting at 2.27p then a deal at 2.37p then another at 2.4p. There was a small sell at 2.2p Try this link for the RNS:- https://www.investegate.co.uk/churchill-mining-plc--chl-/rns/half-yearly-report/201803270949070515J/ I'll be interested in your comments.
I don't have a take on the latest news either way - I tried to find the link and was unsuccessful, so if you wouldn't mind sharing that'd be great. However, there have been many serious cases of either disappointment and/or confirmation bias on outcomes on this share in the past so that - as usual - is what I'd like to help couch everyone against. I notice the sp has dipped to 2 today from 2.2 as well, so it doesn't look like the markets share that confidence just yet (sadly.. it's my money in there too, after all).
I should have quoted volume of 318758 shares . Still a bit of Interest in the Church . Best of Luck All
2 x 100,000 buys gone through today but cant see the 500k one either FJS
cannot see it bbr
The tribunal appear to have broken their own rules, therefore an annulment would seem highly possible. Do you disagree?
Almost 500000 shares. Perhaps someone has confidence .
Would you care to elaborate on what makes you think it's a strong case?
Full story and update given in RNS today. Strong case in favour of CHL in my opinion. July on the horizon now. GLA
In the event we do lose, who conducts the Judicial Review? If we lose would ICSID/ROI have anything to fear from such a Review and why?
Well if we do win arbitration then an award, I think I should come out of it with a reasonable profit but I dont have much confidence that we will not get shafted again by even more dilution. I think a lot on the other b/board bought in at a much lower price than ourselves and Fegatr and so they are excited at the prospect of even an 50p share price. I still may buy a few more shares but more dilution would put me back to square one again?