Member Info for Bfdinvestor

It was never in danger of suspension and certainly not in mid August when you claimed it would happen

Strange to see southcoast trying to deflect from an online valuation that makes this one look plain daft

Strange that you and the chef have both followed me there

Almost like you are the same person

It would seem that nobody is interested in your ramblings on any board

Any reason why you popped across to the GST board Bloggs?

Are you thinking of moving your Kodal investment there

That's not really a disagreement though is it southcoast

Maybe he should have disagree with you on Burnley staying open. Or suspension in mid August last year as a couple of simple examples

Leew I know, I just enjoy pointing out the rubbish he posts.

He seems to think the Chaebol show should be the only game in town. It's a bit like Russian state TV I guess. Pump out enough garbage that it almost becomes believable. Until the surface is scratched anyway.

Despite going out apparently I'm sure there will be atleast one more response.

It can't leave arbitration apparently. Until it is proven to him that it can lol

Yes Chaebol and you miss the bit (conveniently) that specifically addresses loss to Semnet. You also forget that there is a GSFintech subsidiary registered in Singapore. The actual claim could have been brought by either entity

But more interestingly you seem to have moved on from your claim that they can't leave arbitration because it has been proven to be the usual nonsense

The simple fact is GST published a draft agreement via RNS, which if incorrect, would have been market abuse. That claim has now moved to the high court which only happens, according to you, if the agreement has been breached.

Why would GSt breach an agreement in their favour

Incorrect as usual Chaebol. You see Chaebol, the problem with your scenario is that it doesn't fit. You state they can't leave arbitration but they clearly have. You think you can fool all of the people all of the time. You can't

But that is the Chaebol story in a nutshell

Yes, a domestic company in Singapore can refuse to pay an arbitration ruling (arbitral award), but doing so carries severe legal risks and consequences, as arbitral awards are final and binding under Singapore law.

Singapore Law Watch

Semnet is registered in Singapore. The two former directors are based in Singapore. So i'd assume it qualifies as a domestic dispute. A domestic dispute ends up in the high court when the arbitration ruling is broken.

Nope Chaebol, it's the last lie of the troll lol.

I just take pleasure in pointing out your stupidity

And I'm not the one posting twenty odd times every day this week on a chat board where I have no investment

It would seem one of us is triggered and obsessed in an unhealthy way lol. And it's not me

Why would anything you ever say trigger me Chaebol

When I don't believe a word you say.

Although the latest statement may reveal why you put a holiday let as your residence on your dodgy trading notes lol

Nope Chaebol you are just squirming

GST have shifted to the full legal route because the two former directors have welched on arbitration

Anyway whilst you seem happy to go round ever decreasing circles I have a life.

So there is nothing else to say

You have demonstrated that as usual you have nothing to support your fud, which is enough for me

Oh the Chaebol story has just hit a comically new low chapter

Deposit Requirements: SIAC requires parties to pay significant "advances on costs" (deposits) based on the claim value. For a $4.2M claim, these deposits can be substantial.

Comical, there wasn't a 4.2m claim in SIAC Chaebol

The Chaebol story still in full flow

Maybe stop and think about the flood of Ai you are posting

I'm sure you are familiar with GIGO

You seem to live by it

Strange Chaebol, you told massive you werent back til Sunday

What makes you think the agreement, as outlined by GST wasn't the ruling of SIAC

I've also been involved in a couple of arbitration cases in the UK, as has Billy I think.

The one I've been involved with have had costs of less than £10k.

Actually Kat if you actually read chaebol's posts he is doing nothing of the sort.

He is posting as certainty things that he has not a clue about, as I am demonstrating on the other active thread

Why are you also wasting an entire day?

And again more of the make believe Chaebol.

The two defendants walked away from the agreement, so there is no SIAC for the high court to intervene in. Although I'm sure the court won't look favourably on the former directors behaviour should the case get that far

You genuinely are clueless

How many posts now whilst supposedly on holiday in a share where you have no investment

So sad

So what you are saying in your usual long winded way is that you don't have a clue what they have spent, despite your previous statement and have asked AI to come up with a range of fees which may or may not apply.

The Chaebol show at its best

How is Baghdad today lol

The Bottom Line:

If you think Merv and Choo are going to "fold" because they’re scared or panicked, you’re deluded. GST is currently burning huge amounts on legal to fight this. And all in the public domain so sentiment carries on getting smashed awesome !

How do you know what they are spending on legal Chaebol? Yet another piece of make believe? The vast majority of civil cases are settled out of court in Singapore, this will likely be the same. In what way will Semnet legals have an impact on the wider GST brand. Perhaps you can fail to explain this in the same way you have failed to explain the grounds on which the two former directors will counter sue.

Seems we are in for another day of the Chaebol show, hopefully the moderators will do something about it soon. So sad when you are supposedly on hollday