Member Info for Bfdinvestor

So, to translate, you can't find a post where I ramp this Chaebol.

Good to know.

Fyi, seeing as you referenced balance, you post more than Billy, Enki, Leew and Nero combined.

And that's before we get on to the rest of the uninvested

So why don't you include the plethora of other trolls in your calculations Chaebol.

Do you genuinely think everything is about you?

And let's be honest, balance isn't something you are remotely interested in.

I've asked Kat a number of times to copy a single post of mine where I ramp this. Maybe you can help them and post one.

Strange to see that you are still insulting others mental states when you post more on here than anybody else despite holding not a single share and stating that you aren't shorting. Because that is rational

The shocking state of this board is due to the behaviour of a bunch of uninvested trolls and moderators who don't see fit to do anything about it.

And of course badomen it also provides a parachute effect should price of spod fall. But you don't mention that.

As Ive said multiple times the OTA was a summary of a very long and complex document. We will only start to understand pricing in reality at the end of June. You and others who wanted to work out granularity were always on a fools errands.

All we can say at the moment is that with current prices we should be making very very good profit

Well done Zag.

Looks like you shamed him into it lol

No we don't Chaebol.

We have your opinion stating such.

Still waiting for your explanation as to why section 6 would be appropriate, as that seems to be your last attempt

Definitely running on fumes lol

You may have missed the point Chaebol, we are talking about the Semnet case on this thread

Please do explain why you think section 6 would be appropriate

So that is another made up hypothetical Chaebol.

Let's summate where all the troll input has got to today.

The case has been thrown out because something that doesn't need to be communicated hasn't been communicated, so we are doomed

That one hasn't worked so let's try another tack.

A whole load of things might have happened, which if they had happened would have had to be communicated by RNS, so we are doomed.

That one doesn't work either, so let's go to some spurious section 6 lol

the simplest answer is usually the right one.

But trolls simply can't accept that

The alternative scenarios you suggest would be market sensitive Chaebol, as they would alter what has been communicated

The only logical solution is that the admin case conference is exactly as stated on the tin and the case is progressing as normal.

The next logical.communication point is either a court date announcement or a settlement. Logical to anybody who isn't an uninvested troll anyway. Anything else in the meantime would be just noise.

Any counter claim would also be market sensitive information Chaebol wouldn't it?

Yu

Incorrect again Chaebol

The one thing we can take out of the 2nd is that it was a standard case conference and the case is proceeding.

Because, it is wasn't, then that would be market sensitive news and an RNS would have been issued.

Good to see Mouse posting yet more BS whilst running away from the previous set

No you haven't answered it Chaebol

Because the original RNS confirmed that the case had begun. An admin conference is a simple step in that process and therefore does not need an RNS. All three defendants were also named in the RNS, so once again there is nothing else market sensitive to be communicated

Running on fumes but you still can never be wrong can you Chaebol

Once again Chaebol, why would it need to be communicated?

Just like mouse you seem to be avoiding answering

Oh and it was Deacs who first published the case conference not you Chaebol

So there have been no counter claims Chaeboly or there would have been an RNS

As Mouse has ran away, and you have taken up the baton, perhaps you could explain how a case conference with an assistant registrar, on a legal case that has already been RNS'd, is in any way market sensitive or price affecting?

Chaebol, it would appear that no counter claims have yet been filed.

You have claimed multiple times that all three defendant's would do so

If that was the case, the that would have to be RNS'd

Perhaps you could explain why it hasn't happened

So the mouse has ran off to another thread because, despite his 30 years of investing, he can't explain why a case conference needs to be RNS'd

Put simply, because it doesn't

It's about time the moderators started to do their job with all this false information being posted

Keep up mouse

Perhaps you could explain why there is a need to RNS a case conference with an assistant registrar?

In what way is that market sensitive information?

I look forward to the explanation lol

) case seems to have disappeared from court record

Incorrect again mouse

We went through this last week

The court database only shows cases where a hearing is scheduled or a decision has been reached. We had our case conference a couple of weeks ago. The purpose of the database isn't to show a record of ongoing case activity

Wrong again mouse

The troll input today is comical.

We had an admin case conference on the 2nd April with an assistant registrar. This isn't price sensitive news or actually any news at all.

The litigation has been RNS'd.

If the litigation had been suspended or returned to arbitration, then this would have to be RNS'd.

It hasn't, so the logical conclusion is that the case is progressing. Logical unless you are somebody posting on a board where you have no investment ofcourse

What is there to acknowledge Chaebol

They have informed the market that they have commenced proceedings. Why would they RNS an admin case conference, it is totally unnecessary and sp affecting in any way.

Seems you are running on fumes lol