The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Alfresco - re your 13.30 post, there might be a 3rd solicitor in our team, James Wilkes.
Just checked on Mr Barry and the SRA have nothing issued against him. All 3 listed are regulated people with no regulatory decisons published and all linked to Setfords.
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/organisation/?sraNumber=8006648
Green boxed
Adnauseum - tbh, i think it was real otherwise issuing the LOI notification in July 23 was just plain stupidity. With all the effort put in to release shareholders of their dues, a mistake like that seems unlikely.
On that basis, 15 months of due diligence by the JVP suggests there is something there hence all the cloak and daggers to bring COPL down, or rather just remove the shareholders.
Subpoena all involved and we'll get the truth. If AM, RG et al made it up then get them back to Blighty under the bilateral UK MLA agreement we have with Canada as these crimes were committed primarily against UK investors regardless of where the company is incorporated.
B3ast, congratulations, you win stupidest post of the day.
Most of us were 99.5% down in January, pointless selling, something could come up and it has.
Class Action.
B3east
Thanks mate - il will do the complete opposite of what you say or suggest.
Lloydy
Their company website at ceclegal.co.uk is a strange one, never seen that before.
The domain name itself was first registered on 02-02-2024 so probably soon after when the CAG contacted them and specifically for this Class Action, is this normal?
B3ast, hero we should have all listened to you!!!
And the below on 11th Jan
""4. Within 45 days, an agreement with the senior lender on a process and milestones for either a comprehensive sale of the Company's US assets, a foreclosure of the Company's equity interests in its US assets or a "take out offer" in an amount satisfactory to the senior lender."
IMO there's a high chance of shareholders losing everything here.
I wouldn't average down, I wouldn't buy in even for a punt. It's like catching a falling knife"
I posted the below on 16th Jan - why didn't people listen?!
"The writings is on the wall here, shareholders are getting massively diluted and they would likely need further liquidity down the line. There was a nice bounce to be had for anyone who swung trade but the overall trajectory here is down"
No....two doors to the right of the one with the scaffolding and one to the left of the one with full scale scaffolding....17 on the glass above the door.
Waddaweknow....I think it is the one with the scaffolding
Copy and paste the link
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4567732,-0.3012846,3a,75y,124.95h,84.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szorDoa7AdaSlkL4vEpNXpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Saintnick, you bring up the JV, was it a lie.
I am in the Class Action but do not look in the bb everyday but a while back there was comment that CAG had said that there was a potential JVP who walked away in December.
Was there a JVP, can anyone confirm.
Ref Carlton Elleker Chase, this looks like their office?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4567732,-0.3012846,3a,75y,124.95h,84.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szorDoa7AdaSlkL4vEpNXpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
and
https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/office/37451/carlton-elleker-chase-ltd
Montyfino - all court proceedings carries a risk, for me I look at the actions of the company directors as a starting point and think how could or would a judge rule given not only the wider circumstantial evidence but the specific provable instances of the directors (former and present) working against the interests of the shareholders, the direct evidence.
On the basis of the latter, there is a strong case to answer and further discovery during the pre court period will undoubtedly unearth evidence we've not yet considered. Of note, first thing to subpoena will be the documents relating to the JV and anyone involved. That involves disclosure of the 3rd party and their documents, not just COPL's.
If it was all a lie, Arthur and Co are done for and we win, if it was true we'll see the empty box everyone was trying to hide from us and we win.
I do get your point on CEC and Mr Barry, however i'll give the benefit until I know more. It would certainly help to know Setfords official involvement level.
Montyfino not Montfino!
Interesting info re Joel Barry, Montfino. I am assuming that Barry and Cotter will be our legal team.
If we won in court all our costs can be reclaimed. Pre court deal and fee can be negotiated if respondent is in a pickle. Lose and you get nothing.
"If these costs were to be deducted from the eventual payout, then I would have no problem at all!”
This is my problem I'm just about keeping my head above water as it is. Really can't afford anymore.
Link didnt work so heres copy
CMS has confirmed that it has dismissed one of its partners, which the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has now been alerted about.
Partner Joel Barry has been sacked, with CMS saying in a statement: “We can confirm that a partner has been asked to leave the firm and will not be commenting further.”
A former partner at legacy Olswang, Barry took over from Paul Stevens as head of IP before the three-way tie up with CMS and Nabarro. The role is currently occupied by Tom Scourfield.
An SRA spokesperson said: “Now that we are aware, we will look at all relevant information before deciding on any next steps.”
Right thanks, so a key issue going forward.
Part 2
And you fee also.
No win no fee solicitors need to be insured. If the judge decides against the cag then someone needs to pick up the costs for both sides. That comes from the solicitors indenity insurance not the solicitor. This is why only strong cases get to be fought on a no win basis. If your not. 60% plus of winning then forget it.
This case will be binned if its not insured.
Joel Barry - https://www.law.com/international-edition/2019/05/09/cms-sacks-partner-as-sra-steps-in/
Montyfino, please could you explain the importance of the indemnity in a nwnf situation?