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.
Several of us alerted FCA many months ago. Total waste of time. Not fit for purpose.Im unsure what they're up to now.
By ignoring genuine alertedand by so doing hoping to protect the Company's which fund then, they've highlighted their own uselessness.
Not only that, now thousands of investors know know they're a sham organisation and I believe, ultimately they've sown the seeds of their own destruction.
Good riddance
I did smell a rat 2 years or so ago with the pinnochio stuff spouted from the fall off the chair Fart . Got slated . Oh well move on just sorry for for the genuine investors who have been well and truly shxxfted . Good luck elsewhere Bill .
RBM You had mentioned a possible rescue /?refinancing deal, is that dead in the water now?
Saintnick, a good and no doubt accurate, though disturbing, summary.
SteveV - Anavio absolutely came out on top, that was their pay off and they did it by insider dealing. Helen Keller could've spotted that so why the FCA can't is beyond me, but having met some that work there i'm not surprised. They treat it as a stepping stone to join the City spivs.
Arthur signed up to the Anavio deal, with the knowledge of his lawyers (McCarthy Tetrault) with one Robert Brant (Director) sat on our board.
https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/work/cases/copl-acquires-assets-cuda-energy-llc-us25m
Other loan sharks were available but they chose Anavio, through Tennyson and Gaffney's links as they needed people with a track record of coordinated share value destruction. Through that deal came Tom Richardson and Atul Gupta, the latter of which legged it after 2 months once his home address started being public knowledge, still is if anyone wants to pay a visit.
And why those two, well if you need proof of a coordinated scam then look no further than Tom Richardson, Lekoil and the Fenikso loan deal. Arthur knew what he was doing when he signed these guys up that's why he never once offered an equity raise to shareholders. A scam from the second he saw how much oil was at CC, like hell he was going to share that with the little people, trouble is he's lied every step of the way and one way or another he'll have to pay.
But they got the lot for nothing. Stalking horse will turn into a thoroughbred! Art is getting on so probably won't worry too much about the future
NOT incompetent management . Just GREED got the better of them
Anavio probably came out on top.
It was them that were shorting all the Anavio financed raises which destroyed the share price and COPL's ability to raise from other sources( e.g. shareholders rights issues). And also probably made it impossible for reputable RBL's to get involved once they knew we were in bed with the loan sharks
I have said it before. Arthur should never have bought CUDA with the Anavio bonds. He could have easily got enough finance from a shareholder raise. We were buying assets at a discounted rate.
Once Anavio had got involved, aided and abetted by Tom Richardson who refused to allow future funding from anyone but Anavio, the spiral continued and caused the demise.
A promising business wrecked by the money men and incompetent management.
At least we know Anavio lost the lot! Bonds and shares.
Still think it important the judge is made aware at next weeks closure meeting action is hand to pursue the key players due fraud, misconduct and negligence.
Then it is a matter of record, should the SISP have to be expunged and unpicked at a later date, which it will have to be should fraud be proved.
Still calculating that. It’s big, but we’ll keep that as a lovely surprise for the targets.
….any or all….
RBM, not interested so much in the share count per se, but can you give a ball park to the £ figure of the 500…
I’m assuming you’ll inform the court an action is in progress before the SISP closure date, if only for the record.
I note the preceding words; actual, wilful and gross are used here making the bar that little bit higher… however my reading is you don’t have go prove all 3 as they use an ‘or’ which implies any or either of the failings to me..
Thanks RBM
Definitely 100% on all three accounts of fraud, misconduct and negligence
Well done Sir
Further meetings and letters being fired off this weekend, class action launch being moved forward. Over 500 shareholders registered with Setfords so far.
OK, first concern over, this is the key clause for us. They are not protected if fraud, misconduct or negligence can be proven.
AVO
Releases
12. …claims shall be deemed to be fully, finally, irrevocably and forever waived, discharged, released, cancelled and barred as against the ‘Released Parties’; provided that nothing in this paragraph shall waive, discharge, release, cancel or bar any claims with respect to any act or omission that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have constituted actual fraud, wilful misconduct or gross negligence.
Given we’ll have to prove all three anyway, then we can make a claim against any party.
We were never told why the application for a general meeting by Mr Cotter was deemed deficient. This time we need it to be absolutely correct, no loopholes.
Thanks RBM, the process the company is being pushed through is well trodden and with exception of some COPL specific words it follows a process that is legally ok and will pass through.
As the CAG are doing all that can be done is you formally oppose where possible, and interject where you can but the purpose of that is support the long process of class action that follows not with any real hope of altering the course.
CAG is very much aware of the proposed protection orders and are working to find a solution. It’s the main reason for lack of posting, this is our priority for now.
These crooks appear to be one step ahead of us at each and every turn. It seems they are continuing with this fraud, with the authorities, probably not complicit, but certainly displaying casual indifference to the plight of the shareholders. If these people cannot be stopped by legal means what is left?????
Stas, might thoughts too as I voiced last night.
Not only have they juggernauted the sale process through to prevent any meaningful bid be made they are now trying to expedite closure that prevents redress.
I sincerely hope the SAG are on top of this.
Who are, "OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP" representing?
The doc is addressed to them as the court is expecting some kind of appeal from them. ? ?
NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT
This application is made against you. You are a respondent. You have the right to state your side of this matter before the Court. To do so, you must be in Court when the application is heard as shown below:
Date: April 24, 2024
Time: 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Where: Calgary Courts Center, 601 – 5th Street SW, Calgary AB (by Webex – see Schedule “C” hereto)
Before: The Honourable Justice Yamauchi
Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it.
WARNING
You are named as a respondent because you have made or are expected to make an adverse claim in respect of this originating application. If you do not come to Court either in person or by your lawyer, the Court may make an order declaring you and all persons claiming under you to be barred from taking any further proceedings against the applicant(s) and against all persons claiming under the applicant(s). You will be bound by any order the Court makes, or another order might be given or other proceedings taken which the applicant(s) is/are entitled to make without any further notice to you. If you want to take part in the application, you or your lawyer must attend in Court on the date and at the time shown at the beginning of this form. If you intend to give evidence in response to the application, you must reply by filing an affidavit or other evidence with the Court and serving a copy of that affidavit or other evidence on the
applicant(s) a reasonable time before the application is to be heard or considered.
This is obviously disappointing however I want to highlight a few points that I think the CAG need to be specifically aware of and at least raise to the lawyers.
The first point being;
1. Protection and Release Orders: The application also seeks to release and protect various stakeholders including directors, officers, and legal counsel involved in the restructuring process from future claims related to the actions taken under the CCAA proceedings. - Protection and Release Orders are commonly sought to insulate key parties from future legal claims related to their roles and actions in the restructuring process.
If there are suspicions or evidence that the restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) has been engineered by directors to improperly divert assets or otherwise defraud shareholders or creditors, there are several legal and regulatory mechanisms that can be triggered to address such misconduct:
Legal Remedies and Protections
Challenging the Protection Orders: Stakeholders, such as creditors or shareholders, can challenge the issuance of Protection and Release Orders if they believe there is evidence of malfeasance. They can argue that the protection should not apply to actions rooted in bad faith or fraudulent behavior.
Investigation: Allegations of fraud or abuse of the restructuring process can prompt investigations by regulatory bodies or a court-appointed monitor. The monitor’s role is to oversee the process and ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards.
Litigation: Shareholders or creditors can initiate legal actions against the directors if there is evidence suggesting that the restructuring is being used as a façade for fraud or asset-stripping. This litigation could seek to recover damages or reverse fraudulent transactions.
Criminal Charges: If there's substantial evidence of intentional misconduct or fraud, it could lead to criminal investigations and potential charges against the directors involved.
Directors' Duties and Liability: Directors are legally obligated to act in the best interest of the corporation, which includes a duty of care and duty of loyalty. Breaching these duties can lead to personal liability, despite the restructuring context.
IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT -
Warning and Legal Notice: The document contains a warning to respondents about the consequences of not participating in the court proceedings, indicating that failure to appear can lead to barring further claims against the applicants.
Based on the document, the hearing date for objections to the protection orders would be April 24, 2024, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM at the Calgary Courts Center, 601 – 5th Street SW, Calgary AB. The document specifies that this hearing will be conducted via Webex.
To object to the protection orders outlined in the document, we would need to attend this hearing WE MUST
As you can imagine, we are discussing the situation at length, both internally and with Mr Cotter, and will report back by the end of the day.