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.
Has it been said copl pulled the plug on the JV ,possibly because JV did NOT want any thing to do with carry on,? Perhaps they are waiting to bid ,no hopefully waiting GLA
COPL had been in discussions with the potential JVP for well over a year. According to the RNS an LOI had been signed and they were ‘finalising’ the terms.
If the RNS issued is to be believed, cannot see why the JVP would pull the plug after all the time, meetings and expense incurred.
You can only surmise COPL deliberately did everything to discourage. I mean, if you are in extreme financial difficulty, you would accept any reasonable offer, wouldn’t you?
I think the reasoning as regards the JV has been clearly stated on the CAG website.
I would encourage all to read the site every word, back to front so as to speak, many of your questions will be answered there.
As regards this specific question about the JV this is what is stated on the website.
"We know that Joint Venture discussions were going on for around 15 months before things fell apart in December 2023. But perhaps what some might not know is that Heads of Terms were agreed with the JV Party in September 2023 and it was then that the lenders got greedy and caused the problems to ensure they benefit from all the upside.
There is clear evidence that shareholders have been lied to and been misled."
We categorically know that the Board and players involved have acted immorally, unethically and likely illegally. In terms of corporate law it seems the idea of good governance did not even occur in the rulebook under many of these involved.
Importantly, what most human beings would regard of others as being of ANY valid worth to a human society, I think we can all see that most of these involved add NOTHING to society, nothing at all. They are as many would say worthless to society being nothing but parasites feeding of the backs of those that have tried to get on and get along.
Yes, but leaving aside morality and ethics, what is the hard evidence to prove they acted ILLEGALLY?... If there is hard evidence there was illegality, fine. And I am not asking to reveal it in a public forum as it might jeopardize investors' case... Let's keep calm and focus on the legal aspect and its PROVEN EVIDENCE THAT LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED OR BROKEN, which is what it counts in a court of law.... We all know all sorts of court cases where the guilty party walked off scot free only because of the missing little tiny detail could not be proven
IF it is the case that a lender scuppered the JV then I presume it must have been the SL rather than Anavio.
Having their loan secured on the assets means that if JV acquired a big chunk then there are obviously less assets.
I also presume the JV wasn't offering enough to clear the SL debt.
Pulling a plug off a JV happens all the time in world markets. It's not a crime in itself. But doing it deliberately and with a plan to fraud, that is a crime IF YOU CAN PROVE IT in court
Would love the Courts/Regulators to ask the JV why this did not go ahead
Chas,
Unfortunately they would be well prepared to defend themselves and they are not going to reply with anything to excuse themselves of any responsibility. It's up to us to LEGALLY prove with hard evidence there was a criminal reason for it.
Remember Arthur as President of COPLA was responsible for handling the discussions with the JV, this from the September 2023 RNS: "As President of COPLA, he will be well positioned to continue to add value and success to COPL, where his strengths in upstream hydrocarbon exploration and development will focus on completing the Joint Venture discussions. "
So the failed JV talks were part of his continuing "..to add value and success to COPL". Important to realise Arthur is still a key player in this shambles, back in September he saw which way the tide was going & superglued himself to the main asset - where he still remains regardless of all the BOD & management changes since then.
You keep bamging on about HARD evidence email. if ypi took the time to read this forum you will see that this is precisely what our Legal Representatives will do.
Your role seems to be to cast as much doubt as possible on our case.
Sooooooo transpaernet
To be honest Bob, I was expecting an entire army of trolls sent by the powers that be to spam and deflect from all the good discussions and investigations that have been taking place here.
Reckon ‘they’ are rattled and any realise any further suspicious posting will be investigated and followed up to source.
It really doesn’t matter what the trolls say, or their accusations of evidence since none of them are lawyers, and I do believe we have a couple of very good ones acting for us!! And the evidence is clear for even the trolling morons to read!!
IF i were you email I would quietly disappear. I doubt you would wish your identity to be discovered and who set you up to troll.
As Tuvok has suggested it does seem the whole nest of vipers is on the retreat. And so you should be. I've been a guest in those places Uncle Sam built for people like 'them'. The occupants don't like the Arthurs and Tommies of this world. I think they know that
Panamabob, tuvok et al, put a sock in it. As a LTH I think Email's comments are perfectly valid, just ones you don't "like" We all know guilty parties get off as evidence isn't accepted. Let's see what happens.
No they don't get off becaose the evidence needs to be look into and adressed
Is the court case today
Waddaweknow
thanks... Let's hope for the best.
Proving it in court is what this process is all about
We don't need being told the obvious.
If you can't see the Hidden Agenda best you keep quiet
Panamabob
Posts: 11,948
Price: 0.0575
No Opinion
RE: JVToday 14:46
Proving it in court is what this process is all about
We don't need being told the obvious.
If you can't see the Hidden Agenda best you keep quiet
======================
panamabob
Well, I don't need to be told by you that the obvious is obvious,
Can you expand a bit more about my Secret Agenda you mention? As it might be very obvious to you but not to me
We have a top law firm representing us on a no-win no-fee basis. They seem to think we have some hard evidence. Enough said
Can we not go back to arguing amongst ourselves please! The board then just becomes full of nonsense and valuable info might get missed. United front fighting the thieves who con people out of their hard earned money please!!!!
Lol. Email. Your trainer would be proud of you.
When all else fails ask a question.
Now be off with you
Thx email
I was hoping the JV will explain why over 15 months of Investigation/Due Diligence/Negotiation and when we were expecting the i's to be dotted ant T's to be crossed (Sept 2023?) why did they back out?
Was there something they found out about Company/Directors/Finance that stopped this.
May be further evidence we are not Privvy to, but may support our Case
"Can we not go back to arguing amongst ourselves please! " I second that comment.