The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Cool OK thx Mountainous I'll sort that out when I get home. I guess you don't have the 3 email addresses to CC to hand, I know I have them from a previous post but to save me searching....
No problem, should be ok. Either way the information gets delivered :)
Thanks Mountainous, I believe HNS has already sent to Mr Steep?
I think maybe the best thing to do is to address it directly to Scott but CC in Mooky, Israel and Ashley mentioning they are CC'd but asking if he could ensure they see the email too (ie not just their secretaries)?
Had a slight hangover all morning but I'm almost recovered lol
I’ve already sent to steep and d’souza - happy to keep it to Scott and just thought it would be good to cover a few more basis to be honest I don’t think it can hurt sending it to all of them but do what you feel comfortable
I would say just send to Scott and ensure you receive confirmation that he has forwarded it to Mooky.
As previously suggested, perhaps you could also send to Paul Steep, but not sure about how involved he is in the case this time. Might be in our best interests to keep it within the company circle and let it percolate through Scott and BoD in my view.
@HNS_77 Yes OK but maybe CC Israel in onto the same email to Scott? But surely if you CC Israel may as well CC Mooky in and Ashley etc? I was going to ask Scott if he could ensure Mooky sees it (as he agreed to Mountainous at the AGM he would pass questions onto him) or just CC them in - which you think is best?
@BB I was thinking it would be a good idea to send the email to Israel as well as Scott. I am assuming his email will be the same format - my impression is if he picks it up there is a higher chance he will do something with it
Looks like this lack of disclosure is rather commonplace
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/18/judge-bias-corrupts-court-cases
Judges in local, state and federal courts across the country routinely hide their connections to litigants and their lawyers. These links can be social – they may have been law school classmates or share common friends – political, financial or ideological. In some instances the two may have mutual investment interests. They might be in-laws. Occasionally they are literally in bed together. While it’s unavoidable that such relationships will occur, when they do create a perception of bias, a judge is duty-bound to at the very least disclose that information, and if it is creates an actual bias, allow a different judge to take over.
All too often, however, the conflicted jurist says nothing and proceeds to rule in favor of the connected party, while the loser goes off without realizing an undisclosed bias doomed her case.
@Strike thanks for the feedback! - I do like your idea about Cine putting out an interim RNS to signal an investigation into these allegations if they pick this up and are permitted to do so.
HNS, Great work! I just read all the posts on this thread. Even to me it is clearly a breach. Please let us know if you get a reply from Cine counsel. May be if all shareholders email them then that could have bigger impact. Judge Barbara cannot be on CINE's case. CINE and its legal team should take this to the press. Just send it to SKY TV. They like such cases and will air it on TV for Mooky.
Even if CINE can RNS stating that Cine counsel is investigating Judge Barbara's links to Cineplex then those bloody shorts will run for the hills.
@buxton, many happy returns
Sounds like a good plan, yes wasn’t going to sign out for that very reason in case I end up not being able to post on my pc
Sounds like Scott is on the ball and once he gets the message from you hopefully it’s a short chain of command to get this in front of Mooky and the rest of the team .
I have re-read what I sent a few times I genuinely cannot see how this can be justified, but at the same time really surprised if this wasn’t known or declared before the trial went ahead
Either way we will have done our best to shine a light on this - to my mind it’s a clear breach and I would expect an RNS in a few weeks to say the judgement has been reversed - here’s hoping!
Thanks HNS, I've just got back home Ill sort that out to Scott in the morning (maybe had too much wine tonight and celebrating my free Birthday regular popcorn from Cineworld added to my unlimited card lol)
Scott replied to me the Sunday before the AGM so assume he's WFH and will see it.
Yeah it works on Chrome for read only but I can't reply as the sign in button doesn't work on any browser. I guess if you sign out you could try it but don't do that as you may not get back in again! I'll just stick to my phone for LSE it's only useful on the PC when compiling lots of links from many websites
@BB I only provided a link to that one but I also saved each photo and attached to the email so left the links out of some but labeled the photos like evidence exhibits
This is the photo link of the gala leadership - David Mirvish and Phyllis Yaffe - I saved this photo and called it David M and Phyllis’s P and did the same for the Richard and Barbara and the photo of Barbara and Audrey both links below
https://www.patrickmcmullan.com/search/?q=CCAR%20Gala%20Leadership
https://www.patrickmcmullan.com/photo/3454687
Yes that’s the correct PDF again I saved and attached it
I called the email “Cineworld Vs Cineplex”
That’s odd I have been using it on chrome and works just fine
@HNS I've compiled the email to Scott and corrected some of the mistakes. Also you have only linked to one photo, this part is missing a link to one?:
"Context.
Justice Barbara Conway is married to Mr Richard Conway, a lawyer. They are pictured together here at the Council for Canadian American Relations gala event in 2017"
..so with this link inserted you sent 2 photos ?
I did a quick search on google using those parameters is this the pdf you meant?https://tplfoundation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-TPLF-JRRR-Stewardship-Report-CV7-B-1.pdf
I'm just off out Ive saved the email to send later, what subject header did you use BTW?
I don't know why but I can't sign into LSE on a PC browser anymore, Chrome, Edge, Firefox all ignore the sign in button, anyone else have this problem? I gave up and came back to my phone which is still signed up and had to send the pasted above over messenger :-( All the ads on this page make it so slow on my PC it's unusable
OK thanks HNS I must have missed that part of the post, I recall looking at the link to the appeal lawyer you posted I assume it was in the same one
From the appeal papers I posted last week Steep and his firm are listed as counsel and the new guy is co-counsel so looks like they are still leading the process.
Personally I don’t think they would want to bury this - to have the potential to get this judgement reversed would be good business for them - no one likes to hire lawyers that lose so I’m sure they would jump at the chance to put that right
Fair enough HNS :-) Do we know how involved Mr Steeps firm are involved in the appeal? I imagined it would all be on the new appeal lawyer and his team
@Bb it’s a fair point, I was thinking to send it to him also but wanted to hold off in case there are some politics between the firms. Once it goes to Cine we can see if anything comes through and if I don’t hear anything after a couple of days I’ll pull the trigger
@HNS I was thinking during that terribly confusing movie I just saw should you also send it to the new appeal lawyer too?
I'm not so sure Mr Steep & Co has our full interests at heart, at the very end of the trial Mr Bus Analogy Mark revealed he and Mr Steep are BFFs on the golf course which made me wonder if they are all in it together. Mr Steep and Co still had a win/win situation as they got paid despite the outcome and assuming Mooky is using them for the appeal they'll get paid again
On a side note has anyone else found that What's App drains your phone battery real fast? I had to install it in London last week and ever since I have this problem, my battery ran out hours ago and before Whats App installation it lasted all day and more
@patience thanks for the kind words! Let’s hope it brings success in some form or another
HNS, hats off, you are amazing
I didn't actually make it to Cine HNS due to an accident on the A5 I was stuck for an hour :-( in Cine now for later showing
You have to wonder why these associations were not discovered by the Cine legal team during the court case.
Thanks HNS 77
Thanks RS2002 you're welcome - that's correct we do not need to suggest wrong doing has occurred or present evidence of criminal activity merely that this judge should not have presided over this case where she is related to a person who evidently has close ties with senior Cineplex officials .
As you say the ball is now in their court - my philosophy in life is to at least try and see what happens