Member Info for dougb189

Im guessing Whispering that we all occasionally get lost in our thoughts. Chewing the fat though with your peers then usually brings it all back into perspective. The TG groups below which each cover multiple stocks are also a good source of balanced perspective. Then maybe, we try assess the balance of probabilities including the ceo pedigree & any historical results in addition to any financial metrics, which then helps gain a better view of the risk involved.

I get paid the big bucks for investigating technical faults and is that I’ve regularly been complimented for ‘blue-sky thinking’ (which i guess is the modern term for thinking-outside-the-box ?) but usually it all comes down to simply looking at all the direct and indirect connections. Can be seen looking at ABH there is a disconnect with what he posts and with what actually happened or is happening.

I think you might be right though that ABH is tied in too deep with a 2nd party. Good or bad ? Not known yet but the probabilities suggest the latter. We are imo likely to find out fairly soon.

The updates might suggest a mind that is not focused.

There is a lot of recklessness to the truth.

The Hive has its main group centred on AIM / small caps and there is no rockets or price predictions allowed. Very straight laced and which sees both the pros & cons of a stick being quite thoroughly ripped apart. Its owner only buys US stocks and the admin are all above board. Had it been around 7 years ago ? Difficult to say what the outcome might have been ; ABH has a very very strong pedigree. Until he speaks.

Jarvy’s The Core similar to above but slightly more relaxed eg miscreant ceo’s will get treated accordingly.

Appreciated JD.

Areyou a member of The Hive (they have a social / chat group in their listings) or Jarvvy’s TG ‘The Core-Fundamentals’ (I believe she also has an interest here ?

Several good peeps will now be questioning Chandra’s powers of deduction.

Will we see yet again his twitter crowd posting yet more popped champagne bottles on unsubstantiated claims ?

Likely to again be a detrimental sign.

Lets hope he is man enough to stand up this time to ABH.

To then add to the 5 factually correct statements posted this weekend, one could then add another factually correct statement: that the relatively simple task of a cut & paste of your correspondence is beyond your capabilities.

And as yet, the only contribution you have made other than an unsubstantiated claim of correspondence is your inflammatory posts of ‘..i hope all the shorters burn…’ ?!

Inflammatory personality..

It appears Patch that your 11:18 then has at least one valid point, factually correct :

"...Brokers MAY well have had notification - e.g. Lloyds per JDentist..."

With JD., unfortunately incapable of cutting & pasting his alleged received notification (perhaps the deletions of the surnames of those involved was technically a stroke too far) then yes you are factually correct.. Brokers MAY well have had notification.

"...the RNS's [notices] are factually correct.."

CTAG’s most recent unsubstantiated &/or false statements :

23rd November 2022 ‘..The Company is delighted to CONFIRM THAT THE COMBINED VALUE OF ITS DAAP SALE AND LICENSING DEAL TRANSACTIONS IS US$275MILLION..”

30th March 2023 “..The Company would like to advise that the funds for the licensing agreement have been SUCCESSFULLY DEPOSITED AN ESCROW ACCOUNT..”

2nd November 2023 “..The appointed agent will COMMENCE THE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS DURING THE WEEK COMMENCING 13 NOVEMBER. Thereafter, shareholders will be contacted either directly by the agent or by their investment platforms. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE to nominated shareholder bank accounts and investment platforms 4 TO 5 WEEKS AFTER THE PROCESS COMMENCES..”

21st November 2023. “..the Company is pleased to CONFIRM THAT THE APPOINTED AGENT FOR THE DISTRIBUTION BEGAN ITS PROCEEDINGS ON TIME, during the week commencing 13 November. Shareholders are reminded that THE PROCESS TAKES AROUND 5 WEEKS TO COMPLETE..”

21 December 2023. “..the agent AIMS TO BE IN A POSITION TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE WEEK ENDING 19 JANUARY 2024..”

———

19th January 2024. “..they AFFIRM TO ESTABLISH CONTACT with shareholders either directly or via their investment platforms DURING THE FOLLOWING DAYS ENDING 31st JANUARY ..…. The payment agent has given assurances to the company that it WILL BE NOTIFYING ALL SHAREHOLDERS IN A TIMELY FASHION NEXT WEEK..”

4th March 2024. “..has instructed the paying agent to COMMENCE THE PROCESS AND CONCLUDE THE PROCESS ACCORDINGLY DURING THE NEXT 7 WORKING DAYS..”

8th March 2024  “..the company would like to inform shareholders that THE PAYING AGENT PROCESS HAS COMMENCED and would like to REITERATE that the process SHALL CONCLUDE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL TIMEFRAME STATED..”

12th March 2024 “..ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATIONS HAVE COMMENCED where shareholders shall be contacted by the paying agent and various broker platforms. 

Due to the intricacies involved with this transaction we are anticipating that all shareholders will have been contacted by the end of this week wherever possible..”

14/3/24: “… WE RECONFIRM THAT VARIOUS UK BROKERS HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED NOTIFICATIONS…. Individuals holding paper shares are being contacted from tomorrow.

We remind all shareholders of the complexity of this transaction and reassure them that this process is entirely genuine..”



LOL.

22/3/24: “… THE NOTIFICATIONS INTENDED FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED [which is then arguably the ONLY TRUE notice given so far] due to guidance received from the paying agent. This process has been ongoing for some time and may persist into the following weeks..”

Lol, but with further suppositions then that's as bad as me. Thanks Antha but could you verify or add any dates or any figures for the number of shares that involved ?

Another friend is always posting cryptic which at this concluding stage of the game is really dire. It simply does not help or assist other shareholders.

AIM4, appreciated thanks. Is that the more viewpoints, the better we as a group might then see &/or seek out a resolution. Hoping that it gives everyone some additional food for thought, as to the possible various avenues & directions that could then be looked at.

Everything from the penultimate paragraph onwards, including the supposition of 'evidence clearly seen' is then mine, & presented (badly!) as a layman's reference, merely to highlight the recklessness, with total lack of verification of any authenticity (ABH possibly quoting its a 'rush-job' is no defence) that then regularly occurs when ABH is formulating the updates.

Interesting play being suggested by the Catch 22 ; I've occasionally wondered if ABH purposely being considered 'mentally incapacitated, might then hopefully see Shlomo use his Midas touch.

1984., totally agree with you that the watch definitely existed. I've posted that IMO there was no fraud carried out during the period of the 'watch'. ABH travelled extensively to promote this. He believed in it. Hence at that time it would be extremely difficult to correlate fraud & cloudtag. Some sad peeps have waisted the last 7 years trying to suggest that the £8,973,000 raised in 2016, was fraudulent. Extremely difficult to prove.

What has occurred now though, is that from Jan 2020, cloudtag have built a foundation of unsubstantiated claims centred on SaaP & DaaP and for which in November 2022 it was claimed has been bought out in a deal for $275M. There is as yet not a single shred of evidence that supports this.

Types of Fraud : '..There have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g., science, where the appetite is for prestige rather than immediate monetary gain..'

The legal test for proving dishonesty :

The proper standard of proof in civil cases involving dishonesty “is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less.” The standard of proof for proving fraud or dishonesty in civil proceedings is “the balance of probabilities” and not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal cases.

Dishonesty then adequately covered in both cases ie. the balance of probabilities in addition to beyond reasonable doubt, which then has one looking at the possible metric involved ie. tort of deceit claim.

Liability for damages for deceit. (1) One who wilfully deceives another with intent to induce that person to alter the person's position to the person's injury or risk is liable for any damage that the person suffers.

Civil or Criminal case & what is the test for tort of deceit ?

Knowing or reckless as to whether the statement is false.

The defendant has to know the statement was untrue or be reckless as to the truthfulness. Anything less than this is not enough. This is a subjective test as it is relating to the defendant's actual knowledge and state of mind.

=====

ABH's poor state of mind is clearly seen in those multiple reckless statements as to the truthfulness, recorded on his cloudtag website. The serious recklessness most recently seen in the March 2024 updates consistently contradicts the evidence, as forwarded by the UK brokers. The recklessness could then be possibly traced back to 2016 statements, as evidenced then with the Nomad resignation Feb 2017.

Will ABH provide any evidence supporting his unsubstantiated claims and the balance of probability clearly says no. Lets see what charade ABH now comes up with this week.

Certainly would be wise to approach this with the caution that you advise HITS, which perhaps entails a suitable period sitting still whilst awaiting the outcome of a likely no-show from agent/s.

This period of waiting could as you suggest then be utilised for formulating a contingency plan but which IMO likely needs to consider that the only commodity of any value that is left on the table, is the family name.

Thanks for that support HITS. But as Tim knows, I operate independently. Will though try and assist where possible.

I have earlier suggested to Tim that he requests that group members individually fill in official reports to their local police fraud departments with a copy also going to the SFO.

I would also now suggest that any group members then cc their reports to Tim which would give the group an idea of how many shareholders are actively participating.

Tim has asked several times now on what are my thoughts concerning a class action. I have not answered this. I believe there can be a few pennies made here and I’m still taking guidance on the best way forward. That also involves sitting still for the next week until the alleged agent/s are considered non-existent.

The only dividend one gets from reading this bb is learning of the total lack of respect that Pi’s have for each other. Guessing its post-covid = many retiree’s with low self esteem, using schadenfreude as their coping mechanism & just as many schadenfreude motivators foolishly proclaiming x + y = z).

Might be worth considering a class action with those peeps who then bother to fill in an official fraud complaint that is cc’d to the SFO & to Tim’s group. From what is read on here, i suspect most wont know how to. & i have no time for holding hands with this crowd.

I’d disagree that the ‘horse has bolted’ but that yes, there is sufficient evidence to now raise publicity on the matter.

I think though that peeps are looking in the wrong direction. There is now a very strong argument that ABH is no longer sensibly functioning & which I suspect could be used in defence. IMO that’s likely a winning argument: that ABH is incapacitated. The shareholders then walk away having successfully closed the charade but are still out of pocket.

Hence imv you need to be concentrating out-with of ABH and focus on the family name, targeting what some adverse publicity might then accomplish.

There is a reported $50M of shareholder funds being held in escrow, for which the shareholders are being given the runaround, so more than adequate to then open a fraudulent case.

That $50M is less than 5% of the worth of elder brother’s top 5 companies.

My approach will be then to highlight the name of Ben-Haim and the previous partnership the 2 brothers held, sufficient enough to paint a dark cloud over the name.

Which will then need addressing by Shlomo.

Thanks for clarifying bud. Appreciated.

Is 16:07 simply a compilation of various replies and therefore not a factual response :

Since when have HL used quotation marks “…” to then misquote what is clearly not a quotation from an external source..

Its great that peeps believe there may be a possible positive outcome, but when peeps then resort to manufacturing their own interpreted replies eg. as per the false “….” which appears to be a clumsy attempt at highlighting specific details ? But which then only tarnishes that poster’s reputation for providing anything clear & precise.

Dear Mr B.,

Thank you for your recent message.



We completely understand your frustration with this situation. Unfortunately we have not received any updates that we can provide to you from cloudtag. We apreciate this is frustrating but we cannot provide you with information we have not received.



If you have any further questions, please reply by secure message from your HL account or send us an email. Please note that attachments we send will only be available to view on our website and not on the HL App.



Kind Regards, 



Edward

Investment Helpdesk Consultant


Hargreaves Lansdown

Thanks Abz.man, so ii’s notice then appears to more succinctly confer the outlook of the brokers which then matches the general gist of the earlier today, convoluted reply from HL :

‘..If contact is made and further information is received, a corporate action notification will be issued to all eligible shareholders."

Dear Edward,

Many thanks on your quick response.

You ask though that the shareholder takes reference from the cloudtag website, where ‘the most recent updates are available’.

The website shows most recent update as :

“14th March 2024

Further to all recent updates, we reconfirm that various UK brokers have already received notifications from our paying agents. We do not control the time-frames in which brokers contact their nominees.

Individuals holding paper shares are being contacted from tomorrow.

We remind all shareholders of the complexity of this transaction and reassure them that this process is entirely genuine and is simply taking longer than originally envisaged.

The Company remains under strict non-disclosure agreements. All further updates will be published on www.cloudtag.com. “

Which then clearly states that you have received notification but which you can not or will not verify?

With Hargreaves Lansdown holding 120,835,694 shares across 3 separate holding designations and whom apart from Lynchwood Nominees Ltd are the only registered UK brokers on the cloudtag register, it then leaves one feeling somewhat neglected and abused by the lack of any details coming from yourselves.

With the alleged $50M put into escrow on 30th March 2023 by cloudtag as per their website, and the as yet unsubstantiated and unconfirmed cloudtag agent correspondence with yourselves then i have now raised concern on the matter with the Serious Fraud Office.

The concern is i believe to be totally validated by the lack of any response to the ongoing charade that has been occurring with those baseless & unsupported claims on the cloudtag website and the lack of support shown by yourselves.

Again, many thanks on your swift response. Much appreciated.

Regards

Douglas.

======

No disrespect meant to IG / Halifax or Lloyds holders.

Dear Mr B.,



Thank you for your recent message.



Unfortunately we cannot comment on Cloud Tag at this time. Any updates will be provided to clients through the secure message center.

The most recent updates are available on the cloudtag website directly.



If you have any further questions, please reply by secure message from your HL account or send us an email.

Please note that attachments we send will only be available to view on our website and not on the HL App.



Kind Regards,


Edward.,

Investment Helpdesk Consultant


Hargreaves Lansdown