Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
The ‘strict NDA’ is actually another red flag to me. If it really was such we wouldn’t have this blow by blow account which is highly detrimental to the reputation of the ‘buyer’ (imo).
About time the positives spoke for themselves Helx, just one, even minor, external corroboration of any of the extensive claims Amit has made would be enough.
‘Unless Amit is a complete narcissist’
Showing all the signs
My bookshelves have got them all, South Sea Bubble, Tulipmania, Charles Ponzi, Berni Madoff, Asil Nadir.. I’d suggest to some on here that don’t want to listen to some anonymous ‘negative’ posters - read them yourself to at least give yourself a chance!
Spikey 17:45, pretty much a given imo, that’s why I didn’t include that profile (and DelMonti) in my ‘focus group’ comment.
Antha, you’re spot on there. Like in politics across all parties, Helx, hubba and havegun are the ‘focus group’ for how to play it..
If someone lent their shares out before delist, the current situation is perhaps not a binary outcome for them. If the company was just dead and buried they would be in the same boat as any other shareholder - wiped out.
What has occurred creates a potential value of 22p attaching to each share according to the company, but not any certainty that it will materialise. The lender of the shares has the opportunity to offer the borrower (short seller) a price to walk away from their potential obligation. The lender may be just as sceptical as anyone else about the $275m so instead of a binary 0 or 22p can name a price anywhere in between (just as the likes of DelMonti can name a price to become the beneficial owner of shares).
People continually ask why this is continuing - I would hope Amit is not connected to lending out shares in his own company and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, but then again there is not much evidence of anything. Again, I stress this is not an accusation but manipulation of an expectation of a payout even if it didn’t materialise could give a lender of shares an opportunity for gain in the meantime.
Today's Cloudtag news: Amit moves website to a host offering a £10 per month deal..
Perhaps give Amit a price for his holding? Most likely the best deal he will get..
Judging by the supposed contract that allows the ‘buyer’ to take the proverbial ad Infinitum, Amit didn’t get that last £10k to draw up something watertight..
Only the licensing deal cash is supposedly in escrow - as others have said (and to paraphrase), that could be chicken ****. As far as I’m aware there is no way to verify money in an escrow account unless the parties release details, which is not the case here. Agreed it doesn’t make sense but if that were a measure of control over individuals actions, the courts and prisons would be empty.
Is it worth a re-read of past announcements though? I’d certainly agree an archive of information, which is grounded and referenced by external markers is well worth the effort to gain an understanding of something. There is a danger here that confirmation bias comes into play, the ever expanding numbers of announcements are not balanced by any external evidence and they only make sense if the reinvention of Cloudtag down this IP route was genuine from the off. If the announcements are not genuine, we don’t know what the end game is - but, and it’s a big but, the number and content of the announcements within the last year don’t ‘prove’ anything. Not saying it is what happened, but if the end game is a narrative of ‘well I did a great job but the buyer has reneged on the done deal’, if you look at the announcements it would be impossible to prove they were not all written out in advance many months ago as they don’t reference a single verifiable external point of reference and it becomes more and more unbelievable that a serious player would be messing about over ‘announcing’ something that wasn’t locked down in a contract and that a ‘strict’ NDA would allow Amit to give a blow by blow account of it.
Any announcement is saying ‘Yes we’re the bunch of clowns who can’t organise a **** up in a brewery and the NDA we signed was so loose it’s allowed a bloke who can’t actually write a two sentence update that anyone actually understands with certainty, to give a running commentary on it over the best part of a year’. And if it’s in any way a regulatory announcement, we all now now price sensitive information has been sat on for months..
No doubt you will provide some entertainment along the way DelMonti, perhaps the third (or is it fourth?) heads up that it will happen sooner than the ‘official’ timeline and some wise words about the value of correct punctuation and grammar in evaluating the worth of any posts on an anonymous chat board (whilst ignoring the howlers in the last Cloudtag update).
Cindy, perhaps the so called announcement is not a regulatory one? Google tells me J&J has a m cap of $378bn. If they buy something in for $275m as part of a product/project it is just normal everyday business in the scheme of things. Does Tesco RNS every time they add or drop a supplier?
My take for what it’s worth, is that it is more the so called buyers marketing or a product launch requirements that Amit is referring to.
You’ve bought the sizzle (Amit’s speciality). Genuinely hope you get the sausages tomorrow..
It was very much a ‘done deal’ (all processes are complete etc) before it seemed to be downgraded to this buyer being committed status. Is the ‘buyer’ contractually obliged to complete the sale deal? That is the pertinent question to which there is still no answer.
Just to pick up on the HL point for what it’s worth. Normally HL would not have any involvement with the shares of a company not traded on any market and run by a sole director with no external oversight. Obviously a legacy situation has arisen from a former iteration of Cloudtag that was listed on the Aim and HL are obliged to undertake administrative work on behalf of clients (who will be using HL on an execution only basis rather than a bespoke brokerage service with an advisory function). As Ctag is indeed issuing ‘official’ updates, HL will be acting on the basis of these updates being a genuine expression of the affairs of the company - what other choice do they have. What enquiries can they actually make with certainty, and why would they set themselves up to underwrite the veracity or otherwise of the information contained in the Ctag updates?
Everything hinges on one man’s version of events - if there was independent verification I would expect it to be in the wider domain than just HL.
You need a dip back to the Liz Truss £/$ rate (or lower) to offset inflation and the opportunity cost of doing something useful with the proceeds after months of delay. Look at a local sole trader’s terms of business and you’ll likely see a better grasp of the effect of delay in settling a done deal with a surcharge for delayed payment than Amit seems to have with this oh so credible ‘buyer’..
Ducks lining up eh? The bingo’s kicked off early down your way..