Member Info for Bearhunt3r

To pursue a campaign against the Defendant and parties perceived to b e associated with the

l2

Defendant. It is averred that such actions are intended to cause harm to the First Defendant rather than attempt to recover value for the Claimant.

24. In the premises, and with regard to the dealings that have taken place between the parties, it would be inequitable to allow the Claimant to enforce its strict legal rights under the Loan Agreement and Charge Agreement and the Claimant is estopped from so doing. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendants reserve the right to bring further proceedings arising from the facts set out above, once the full investigation into the factual back ound has been gr

completed.

CVS' lawyers Grosvenor Law. By email dated 19 January 2023 timed at 1 1.14, Dan Morrison, partner at Grosvenor Law ,vrote to Mr Antonioni in the following terms:

"Myclientsare engagedin civilandcriminalcomplaintsagainstMr Bonnier and I am writing to ask ifyou would be available for a short call this week to discuss these matters. We believe thatMrBonnier hasdefrauded anumber ofinvestors, employees and suppliers over many years. The Singapore Judge threw out his attempttorestructureAaquathismorningbecauseofalackofbonafdi es,thelatest

11

blow in his attempts lo keep things quiet. The entire Bonnier house ofcards is about to collapse.

His dealings with AudioBoom shares are also the subject ofinvestigation by

various authorities and I know from documents he has disclosed in London thpt

. your office sold a parcel ofshares to his wife, which were subsequently used to engage in deceptive market practices, to iriflate the share price etc and create liquidityfor the Aaquaproject which itselfwas built on a tissue oflies involving

fraudulent representations as to Apple, L VMH involvement etc_

My clients are looking to engage with you in a constructive andfriendly way and to discuss matters offthe record. "

21. Further, the New Board ofDirectors has taken steps to exert influence on another investee company, Sentiance NV, which has a substantial trading receivables from AAQUA. The New Board of Directors sought to exert influence on Sentiance NV to claim these receivables, in full knowledge that AAQUA was not in a position to pay as a result of the WFOs. Whilst Sentiance NV did send written demands, it is assumed that its board of directors is sufficiently level-headed not to waste costs on an unproductive legal claim.

22. There are reasonable groWlds to believe that the actions ofthe exiting Board ofDirectors in appointingtheNewBoardofDirectors(havingbeenexpresslyputonnoticeoftheobjections ofother directors and a substantial group ofshareholders) amounted to an unlawful breach of fiduciary duty. Such objections were not insubstantial - they pointed out in detail that the incoming Board of Directors was irremediably conflicted, having a historical conflict with AAQUA (the Claimant's largest investment), to the extent: ofactuaJly supporting CVS with the WFOs which caused so much damage to AAQUA (and therefore to the Claimant). Moreover, the outgoing Board of Directors had received a comprehensive proposal that included yet was not limited to a full roll-up ofthe AAQUA business into the Claimant, for

in essence little to no payment: and future payments in the Claimant's shares only due once milestones had been achieved successfully by AAQUA. Had this deal been agreed it would have also enabled the First Defendant to repay the balance ofthe Loan.

Ed themselves on or around 21 December 2022. Although one directorvigorouslyobjectedtotheproposedcourseofactionbewasoverruledandforcedto resign in protest

18. The New Board of Directors then undertook a concerted and deliberate course of action which was desi ed to assist CVS and DVR in their attempts to cause maximum damage to

the First Defendant. The Claim itself is a calculated example of this as the Claimant has reneged on the terms of the Collateral Contract, its promises, and the fundamental understanding between the parties. Having been deprived ofthe means to repay the Loan as a result ofthe wrongly granted WFOs, the First Defendant does not have assets available for recovery. This is well-known to the Claimant and CVS as the First Defendant was required to give full disclosure ofhis assets in order to comply with the terms ofthe WFOs. The Claim is thus opportunistic, oppressive, and in any event is in breach of the Collateral Contract outlined above and contrary to the Promise which forms the grounds of the promissory estoppel.

contacted other shareholders ofthe Claimant who received shares as part of the AAQUA share-for-share transaction. For example:

a. By letter dated 5 April 2023, the Claimant wrote to Mr Peter Antonioni ("Mr Antonioni") in the following tenns:

"The new AAA hoard of directors has been conducting a compliance and corporate governance review. As partofthatreview, we ha ve considered anumber ofshare issues made byAAA over the lost couple ofyears, inparticular those that involved the transfer to AAA ofordinary shares in Aaquo BV in consideration of the issue ofnew AAA shares. One ofthe transactions we are reviewing is that on 27I10/2021 whenyou were issued with 9,375,000new ordinarysharesin AAA. The Aaqua BVshares were transferredbyyoutoAAA withfi1lltitle guarantee, i.e.free

fromallencumbrances. Wewouldbegratefulifyouwouldletusknow:1. When weretheAaquaBVsharesissuedtoyou?2. Whatwasthesubscriptionpricepaid b y y o u fo r t h o s e A a q u a B V s hare s ? 3 . C a n y o u p r o v i de us w i t h e v i d e n c e o f p a y m e n t infullfor thoseAaquaBVshares? We wouldhegratefulforyour response within

five business days, failing which we reserve the right to treat (i) the Aaqua BV sharesaseithernilorpartlypaidand(ii)theagreementbetween AAAandyourself under which the AAA shares above were issued as null and void "

It is averred that this was part of a highly selective campaign directed at shareholders perceived to be close to the First Defendant. This has caused additional disruption to the First Defendant's business relationships as well as reputational damage.

Around 25 July 2022. Ultimately, CVS conceded that the WFOs were wrongly obtained and when the WFOs were automatically set aside following the failure ofCVS to fortify its cross­ undertaking in damages, the Court ordered CVS to pay all of the First Defendant's and AAQUA's costs on the indemnity basis and further directed an inquiry as to damages (the "Damages Inquiry"). Facing a substantial damages claim from AAQUA and the First Defendant, CVS sought alternative methods to damage the First Defendant and exhaust his financial resources to force him to settle or abandon his claims.

15. This started with an aggressive campai led by Mr. Nick Candy (majority shareholder and gn

director of CVS) himself to contact various parties connected with the First Defendant and AAQUA and make (to the First Defendant's knowledge and beJief untrue) seriously defamatory claims that the First Defendant had committed serious crimes which were being investigated by, inter alia, the Serious Fraud Office and other regulatory bodies. This was followed up by unsolicited correspondence from CVS' solicitors Grosvenor Law repeating these allegations to third parties. See further below at paragraph 20.

16. It appears that, due to these wrongful allegations, CVS convinced another investor in AAQUA and the Claimant, David von Rosen ("DVR") to combine forces. This has culminated in a large conspiracy to replace the Claimant's board of directors and instead appoint a board hostile to the First Defendant. The three board members appointed - Michael Foy, Colin McQuade and Maria Bista (the "New Board of Directors") - had either previously worked or were due to start working for AAQUA and had left in contentious circumstances. Indeed, Michael Foy gave evidence on behalf of CVS against the First DefendantintheWFOProceedings. Itappearswithoutanyproperexternalcommunication by the Claimant that Maria Bista resigned on 12 June 2023 and Michael Foy resigned on 8

June 2023 as per a Company House filing on 28 June 2023. The First Defendant wasalthough as of yet not Company House filing has been made.

17. The circumstances in which the New Board ofDirectors were appointed appear to have been highly irregular. The group ofshareholders(including the Defendants) with the sufficiept voting r�ghts had called for an extraordinary general meeting as is their right under Article 15.3 ofthe Claimant's Articles ofAssociation. Such caUs were ignored by the then Board of Directors without reason at the time, although later ostensibly on the grounds that the shareholders were not recorded in the Company's shareholders register3. The Claimant, with the full support of their legal counsel Fladgate LLP and Registered Agent in the BVI, had through the share for share swaps, issued the shares to the Defendants and other shareholders and therefore it's inconceivable that grounds for refusal of the request for an extraordinary general meeting was correct.

‘According to the public court documents, the loan was due to be repaid in May 2022. What were the directors of the company supposed to do, just accept it?’

It also states in da court documents, Nick Candy’ unlawful wwfo destroyed a multi million pound startup.

https://www.wallace.co.uk/articles/wallace-successfully-secures-the-discharge-of-worldwide-freezing-orders-for-aaqua-group

I’ve just retrieved court documents frm telegram 2

I’m not up 2 speed wid dis dispute. But In da court documents it suggests 3 directors unlawfully took control of aaa under nick candy’s instructions, all part of a huge conspiracy apparently. In da telegram group and court documents it is said 1 of da directors Michael Foy gave evidence on behalf of Nick candy in da unlawfully obtained wwfo. Michael Foy along wid 2 other directors who happen 2 have conflict of interest were then unlawfully appointed to aaa’s board. 2 Directors Michael Foy & Maria Baristas then resigned, it appears they resigned without proper external communications.

Are these the directors u refer to wetwang?

BBB - they are still around unfortunately. Yes, short positions taken ahead of inside info on placings.. horrible bunch.

They even blackmailed Rob Proctor back in the day to protect their short positions. Really hope the shorts on Boom have their collar felt. Some posters on ADVFN have mentioned the short size on Boom could be in the region of 3m shares. I wouldn’t be surprised, it’s traded more than 16m shares in the last 12 months and zero tr1 notifications.

very informative jlovie - thank u

i found this page useful - https://twitter.com/abusemarket

************* gang has circled around boom for many years. that twitter page is a real eye opener how these shorting gangs operate.. of course it makes life much easier when they have certain brokers, mm’s & insiders on the board all on the payroll

Are the market makers/brokers involved with the shorters?

I was unable to get a quote on HL to buy more than 100 shares at 235. Someone posted a screen grab of L2 with 2 mm’s at 235, still couldn’t buy. Same games have been played for the last 14months - I don’t understand it?

What are these mm’s (market manipulators) playing at?

LMAO

Only 16m shares in circulation. Volume in recent weeks exceeded 4m (90% buys). Vast amount of shorting will be naked.

Well why £16 and why 700%? What’s the relevance?

Can’t buy

Why 700%?

Who do u know thats 700% up on their short position?

Should read *short position hedged against his long

Return of Zak and his claptrap

Boy wonder with his short position hedged against his short.. how long b4 ur short is left naked eyy boi

No, it’s at whatever the UT price is. If there’s no activity in auction, closes at mid price.

Closing sp today was 185.

Auction