Member Info for 36800

And at the weekend, shocking! Whatever next. lol

The Federal High Court in Lagos has granted Petrolex Oil & Gas Limited permission to advertise its petition to wind up Energy Link Infrastructure Limited (ELI) over an alleged unpaid debt of $13,837,235.98 arising from charter party agreements.

https://www.thisdaylive.com/2025/05/31/13-8-million-debt-court-allows-petrolex-to-publish-winding-up-petition-against-energy-link/

Your document is dated April 2021.

The information I posted is dated August 22, it supersedes your information. It is the latest development. Again you try and twist the facts to cover up the truth.

You are transparent.

Bluerill, I will upgrade you from idiotic to moronic. I made no mention of it being a judgment. You are now against me posting FACTS from the case so far. Why is that? Exactly what are you trying to cover up?

You are transparent.

April 4th 2022. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Upon the foregoing documents, W Management Services Ltd.'s (W Management) motion for partial summary judgment must be granted.

Mr. Fanning's affirmative defenses fail and do not preclude summary judgment here. Mr. Fanning argues that, although the Loan Documents required the delivery of the capital shares in one free-of-payment delivery . Mr. Fanning alleges that Ms. Akbar told him that W Management would pay at the time of delivery, and therefore he was fraudulently induced to sign the Loan Documents. The problem with this theory is that Mr. Fanning could not have reasonably relied on Ms. Akbar's statement because it is directly contradicted by the express terms of the Loan Documents

Mr. Fanning also cannot assert fraudulent inducement based on Ms. Akbar's statement because the Loan Documents contain both a merger clause and an express disclaimer of any reliance on any representation not set forth in the Loan Documents, including specifically with respect to the capital shares. Mr. Fanning's aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty affirmative defense also fails because Mr. Fanning has failed to allege the underlying breach of fiduciary duty.

Mr. Fanning admitted in his deposition that he did not have a contract with Ms. Akbar and had not discussed their relationship . He has not otherwise demonstrated that she owed him any fiduciary duties. In addition, Mr. Fanning has not brought claims against her for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Fanning's affirmative defense for tortious interference also fails because Mr. Fanning has not alleged that W Management acted either for the sole purpose of harming Mr. Fanning or with malice.

Mr. Fanning also fails to demonstrate an adequate basis to support the affirmative defense for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Thus, the motion for summary judgment as to liability must therefore be granted and the cross-motion denied. The issue of damages shall be referred to a JHO or Special Referee to hear and determine the actual damages W Management suffered. It is hereby ORDERED that W Management's motion for summary judgment as to liability on its cause of action for breach of contract is granted; and it is further ORDERED that Mr. Fanning's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further ORDERED that a Judicial Hearing Officer ("JHO") or Special Referee shall be designated to hear and determine the issue of damage

We waited like you told everyone to do. Of course, it's not the great news you and your team of ramping idiots promised. Now there's a surprise.

"Award of $25m in damages made against Irish oil executive Oisin Fanning in New York court".

https://www.independent.ie/business/award-of-25m-in-damages-made-against-irish-oil-executive-oisin-fanning-in-new-york-court/a1665404161.html

Bluerill, your answer, a post that has now been removed as it was not an answer and just further insults and lies that reflect your desperate position and lack of ability to debate as an intelligent human, showed that you ARE prepared to lie (about having met me) and confirmed that you are ready to make up quotes and spread disinformation to distort the truth.

Well done, we all knew it, and now you have proved it.

Bluerill, I am unaware of anything like that being said by Oscar Wilde. Did you make it up? Please, a link to the quote or even what you have based a misquote on. I am always happy to be enlightened.

He did write, "It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information,” but of course, you and Sam hadn't been born.

Bluerill, again, you prove how dim you are. Of the nine paragraphs you reference, each makes a point. I break the text into paragraphs to make it easier for you to follow, though clearly that was asking too much. I can’t say I’m surprised, as a single rambling paragraph writer, you don’t seem familiar with proper English writing conventions.

Sam, dear boy, everyone can clearly see, including your lawyers, that I comment on reported facts and offer up a personal opinion based on those events. My opinion is also based on witnessing past performance, which, so far in San Leon's long history of floundering, has been a good indicator of future performance.

Conversely, your "team" only predicts the future, one that is always to be rosy but never turns out so. They tell long-suffering shareholders that they should wait for the good news, it has never come. This “ramping” is well documented; it's been going on for so many years.

I think everyone can clearly see that it is your posts, the whole team's posts, that being so aggressively manipulative I take great joy in drawing attention to.

I believe that what you are truly concerned about and are desperate to stop, is me spending time digging up "propaganda" against Sam, Bluerill, Previous & Co. Unfortunately for you, this takes no time at all as your collective bullying posts are blatantly biased, repetitive and hypocritical. Your method being primitive, childish and ineffective. You seem to think that genuine shareholders are as dim as you.

Cease making fools of yourselves and wait for more facts to be published, that news you ask others to wait for. Results from the court case, news about potential refinancing, a rescue package, perhaps compensation for shareholders.

In my opinion, (and what you fear and know full well as any lawyer would agree, is that I am allowed an opinion), is that case against TRAM will take a long time to settle. Legal cogs turn slowly whilst the modern world and market dynamics change rapidly. Will San Leon ever be a viable proposition?

If lost, apart from the cost of legal fees, it will most likely be the end of San Leon. It seems unloved by institutional investors, and the City and the normal routes to further finance would appear to be unavailable to you. Hence the desperate mess it is in now.

"How about you focus on being relevant before you try yet another limp comeback. "

Bluerill, I hope you don't mind me quoting you, as your words seem far more appropriate now than when you used them yourself.

Very funny, Afamefuna. I presume you are taking the mickey out of those who have foolishly predicted this company to be on track for a great future, that there is nothing to be worried about, and the finance deal to save the company from extinction is "just about to happen".

Well done, fella, it keeps us smiling in the face of adversity, and outright laughing at those company employees who think their foolish posts and empty words can hoodwink us.

Good synopsis.

Your attempt to divert our attention from the true meaning of this court action is rather poor bluerill. The court action in itself is not the important point. Who wins or loses is irrelevant.

We waited for news that the childish bambino Sam245 kept shouting would come. The news came. It was very bad news.

This legal action signals the end of negotiations, and therefore, no deal, no money, no San Leon Energy.

What a shame SLE holders have their money tied up in this fiasco at this time of volatility and fantastic worldwide trading opportunity.

Bluerill, you've written nigh on 4000 words, that's seven pages of rhetoric in the last 5 days. All to help total strangers understand investment principles. How very charitable of you, bluerill, how very very charitable.

In the interest of fairness, as bluerill is accusing Bumpia of being a plant, it must be remembered that many have considered and publicly expressed over many years that, due to his devotion and his never-a-bad-word-attitude towards SLE, that bluerill himself is a plant.

He too, had a first post many years ago; the same could have been said about those first posts that he is now, in a blindingly obvious attempt to discredit fair and reasonable debate, accusing others of. (A typical Trumpian tactic).

The difference, of course, is bluerill has far more history to base one's opinion on, as does his stooge, the bad cop, sam245.

I don't think Fanning's pockets are deep enough for this one.

Mr Fanning alleges that Asad Ali has threatened to send individuals to his home to “deal” with him, that Asad Ali sent “aggressive and inflammatory” WhatsApp messages to him, and that Asad Ali made a public statement about him on social media aimed at causing “reputational and professional harm”.

The latter two statements should be easy to present, the first a serious accusation.

Thank you for the other side of the picture Bumpia. This does not surprise me in the least, not with the reputation Mr. Oisin Fanning has gained over the years.

I would love to be privy to more information about "repeatedly engaged in bad business practices, and we have exercised considerable restraint in keeping those practices discreet” and the "attempt to distort the facts and fabricate allegations of wrongdoing”. I have often considered that Fanning and Trump have similar personalities. If the report is true, it would appear that TRI has seen through the blarney.

Ali castigated Fanning for his "childish" tactics and said he had "a chance ... and you f***ed it”.“, again, if true, would sum it all up.

I said to redeyemines and bluerill, who did not mention the above from the same article for reasons unknown, I have still not sighted these reports in person, so reserve judgement until Mr. Fanning keeps his promise since de-listing to inform shareholders of important developments.

But perhaps he is far too embarrassed at his continual and constant failure to deliver value to shareholders whilst he lives the life of Riley.

Thank you redeyemines. There is no smoke without fire.

Thank you redeyemines, but that seems to point towards a failure to deliver whilst explaining why Fanning is chancing his arm with the legal action against TRI.

"Not consummated" is a legal term usually applied to an unsuccessful marriage. Indeed, there has been an unsuccessful marriage between these two parties.

It makes no sense that TRI would re-open negotiations whilst having court action taken against them. Perhaps a new deal was discussed for considerably less money and far more security but it has also fallen through, perhaps this is the deal that, in his desperation, Fanning is attempting to go to court with.

But as usual, shareholders are not informed despite his written promise and until such time as they are, then your interpretation is only one of many, and only one can be correct. Good luck with your theory, sir, but I think you are reading too much hope into a single article that has not been published anywhere in the public domain.