Member Info for dougb189

Its an action where three persons have spent the summer in correspondence with 3 different lawyers on 2 different continents & those lawyers have corresponded with a 4th lawyer in the Caribbean, then have eventually managed to bring a lawyer to take on cloudtag shareholders legitimate concerns.

So why on earth would one then share all the legal approaches with someone who is questionably a certifiable borderline eejit ? You are 100% irrelevant bud. The sincere shareholders have and will continue without you.

The information currently disseminated is sufficient to keep all sincere shareholders aware of the current ongoings as currently being received.

Antha, I like your thinking, as that is one direction yet to be exploited, where I believe a significant proportion of any damages will come from.

The company’s name will not be shared until it has been cleared to do so by Michael. And currently it is a low priority* to do so and would then come with strict adherence to protecting that company’s ex-employees (2 leading doctors, 3 ex-directors, 3 software engineers & one Brand Strategist (whom I have previously named)).

It does not currently serve any reasoned shareholder to learn the name of that company.

If any shareholder though still feels that they still need additional data so as to assist in any decision making prior to committing to requesting an EGM, then IMO they should not be part of any group attempting to seek the truth. Amit’s appalling catalogue of lies that have been issued on the Cloudtag website is more than sufficient to allow the reasoned shareholder to make a decision on what is the correct way to proceed.

And should they wish to do so, then acknowledgement that information highlighting that Amit had recently set up another company as described, can be verified from Tim.

*low priority, due to the 121+ responders to Michael’s request for shareholders to seek an EGM, which is the current primary focus.

“sweating profusely” is my short-hand annotation.

What was actually reported :

“… Towards the winter of 2023, he became increasingly intense about quickly raising money, making market entry, and began paying all the team late—and eventually not at all, including myself. He never paid any of us for several months, leading to many of us quitting one after another while chasing him for our money. He would lie, saying, "I’ll pay you this day," and then, when the payment was not made, he would create false deadlines...”

This from an employee of Amit’s latest company that was set up in Delaware in March 2023, to promote and sell diabetes digital management solutions and for which Amit desperately sought $3M seed money, which the US did not fall for, and which then resulted in his most recent company then having its website removed in the last few months.

And yes, that date is correct. And no, in his current heightened anxiety state, he is most certainly not laughing.

*naivity. lol

Beast raises a legal/ethical issue, that if Amit’s blind faithful have helped raise funding through their false promotions, do they then share blame ?

Legally, and i suspect that being ‘blindly’ led is then an issue centred on nativity. So likely very difficult to chase further. My suspicion is that those named by Beast fall in to the naive category, as likely does Kev.

There is though another that has been tied to active participation on those earlier fraudulent notices of interest from J&J and that person’s details are forwarded on.

So ethically, should those that blindly posted false statements then get isolated from seeking damages & again that is a difficult call. For me, there is only one target to concentrate on & he is currently profusely sweating whilst hid under a rock.

It is sufficient enough information, such that Amit knows, that we know of his frantic plans since March 2023 until this year, of his failed attempt to solicit $3M seed money from American corporations / public.

Digging himself a nice deep hole.

Can calculate fairly exactly when Amit’s faithful stopped contributing.

As it then ties in with Amit taking over the reins as CEO of a software orientated medical company previously incorporated in Belgium and then transposed to Delaware in March 2023 when Amit then took it over.

Remarkably similar software for diabetes treatment was its main offering.

And it then only sought ‘’$3M seed money”

as per its then website with Copyright @2024, that is now removed.

I have to say Maria, you have rather exposed yourself.. ‘Brand Strategist’?

Worth pointing out, that IF there is no reply from Amit,

then it ain’t always necessarily so, that an EGM is needed..

One might then go direct to litigation. Still lots of variables at play yet.

Lol but the only thing that is set in stone,

is he will not be hiding under that rock next year.

Well done all.

Hopefully it won’t be too long before Michael can deliver video to the shareholders. Keep the momentum going.

From memory there’s a clause in the By-Laws that notification is to be advertised in two national news papers (the By-Laws/Articles originally centred on UK regulations from decades ago) and so guessing he might use this as guidance. There was previous talk of Michael utilising some mates in the Press to publish/advertise the story (2 birds with 1 stone perhaps?) which he thought had strong interest value.

Thanks Steelbru, work requirements last week was full on. I’ve requested an approximate time scale of events : when do we send legal letter to Amit requesting EGM (& is it 7 days or 45 days for response?) followed by when can we pay the phase 1 fee of £180 (7 days or 45 days) if there is no response from Amit. Hopefully we can this show on the road ASAP.

Excellent answer btw. Thanks.

Waiting on clarity of two points :

1. If say we now get 100 Pi’s each committing £180 does the raised fees of £18,000 then get leveraged return from any possible phase 2 court proceedings. Asking for clarity such that those who commit to phase 1 then see a possible leveraged return against their £180 deposit, if damages are later awarded in phase 2. Phase 2 is likely to then be a pro rata / leveraged fee arrangement, but the above quoted example of £18,000 should imo be part of the overall ‘class action’ arrangement).

2. If we then get results from phase 1 that then enable damages to be claimed, then I am asking for clarity on who can commit to phase 2.

I will request that those who do not contribute to phase 1 will then not be able to contribute to phase 2. I would not like to see any ‘positive’ results from phase 1 then get hijacked by others, who then suddenly realise the possible implications of Litigation Funding, etc, etc.

Half suspecting that if we raise sufficient enough funds for phase 1 that perhaps we do not then need to raise further, IF the results of the EGM (or even the lack of) are deemed sufficient enough to then bring in an interested Litigation Funding company willing to take this to court.

Some peeps jumping in at the deep end again. For the N’th time, phase 1 is a flat rate fee. This is for counsel to oversee that an EGM gets facilitated. That then tells the shareholders if the company April 2024 statement of ‘agent has received SaaP fee for distribution’ is then a truth or a lie in addition to wether or not the company has received any payments.

The flat rate fee is for Phase 1, covering a legal counsel facilitating the EGM. Ridiculous to then jump in & suggest there is a ‘win’ fee for facilitating standard operating company procedures calling for Special Resolution.

The flat rate fee then saves on time, effort and lots of tediously boring paperwork, where some poor sod then has to sit down and collate everyone’s equity holdings and then convert that into a pro rata split where each person pays a different fee, when all we want to do, is simply open the company books.

Pro rata fees will very likely occur for phase 2 which then involves taking the results of the EGM to a court case, to either facilitate the distribution of any funds discovered in the company accounts &/or to facilitate seeking damages. Ridiculous to then jump in and suggest “win fee” when as yet, the shareholders do not know which actions a court case will settle.

Guaranteed that legal representation for billionaire “gangster-like” Professor Shlomo Ben-Haim will be taking notes. I suspect damage-limitations will feature largely in Shlomo’s interests. Amit will still be hiding under a rock.

I suspect Antha that it will be a flat figure for Phase One [EGM]

eg. £100 for all shareholders (or whatever £ counsel advises)

But that any court case action might then see your incremented fees, pro rata to your losses.

At that point it then sounds that the legal team have additional tasking of trying to work out the pro rata fees inclusive of any Litigation Funding inputs from the market.

Thanks HITS, i will take your pertinent points and then get these passed to legal counsel.

There is unfortunately another metric that nobody has yet picked up on, which again makes it more difficult for the shareholders to pass any resolution. And that is tied into a possibility of a poll vote occurring.

This though is again not insurmountable. But it does necessitate having strong counsel. Hopefully we ALL get updated this week.

I was quite surprised Antha to hear that legal counsel were considering 2 additional points :

1). that the NOMAD involvement was being considered (imv, dependent on EGM result)

2). that approaching the national media was also being considered with counsel highlighting that he will likely use his contacts in the press (again, dependent on EGM result).

There have been some good reports raised on here & other platforms of the NOMAD’s recklessness in their oversight of Cloudtag. Might be worth collecting that data. I had initially thought that going to the Press might be unlikely, or knowing my luck that it might have been a couple of lines on the obituary page or somewhere similarly remote. But then reconsidered that if the story then does involves the NOMAD and associated poor regulation of London small cap market, then suddenly the story goes very big. Likewise the story will go big, if the press then make correlations with the two brothers approaches to obtaining funds : both using “J&J are interested” falsehoods, both using “IPO” falsehoods. What I actually used to get the authorities interested (still ongoing, hence Amit hyde’s under a rock) was the catchy phrase of ‘Professor Jeykll & Mr. Hyde’ which I’m guessing might then get aired. Certainly think this Xmas will be more exciting for me than last year’s Xmas when I had initially started thinking that the Xmas turkey on the table was likely not the only turkey present in the room.

Cont.

‘..expectation is that ABH would ignore any request to hold an EGM and produce accounts. What powers do UK/St Vincent lawyers have against him ? It may be a St Vincent registered company, but if he is an Israeli citizen, living in Israel (?), and the sole director, then how likely is that we would ever see any accounts if he chooses not to co-operate ? 

This must be a very likely scenario, so rather than your Phase 3 talking about how they would try and recover the $275m, what happens if you can't prove the money exsists ? I can't imagine any legal company taking on a case on a no-win no-fee scenario if they're not confident of there being funds there to claim against..’

=====

‘.. What I'm struggling with is in what way I've been "wronged", apart from emotionally. 

All the definitions I can fined relating to Tort of Deceit have similar wording to your last two sentences, but they go on to say something like :- 

“……with the intent that it shall be acted on by another, who suffers damages as a result." or 

".....intending that the person acts on it, to that person's detriment" etc 

The "damages" or "detriment" parts are the crucial part in these definitions I believe. As I've said, I have not suffered financial damages or detriment, so am still unsure how such a claim could be successful. I assume we're not talking about claiming him for emotional damages ? 

Can you/Tim confirm what type of damages you could envisage going to court for if it transpires it was all a con and there is no $50m or $225m (and you have not been persuaded to buy additional shares). 

ps If I believed or had evidence that deals had been done and Amit had received the monies and was refusing to distribute it, then i would absolutely be all for joining up, so if any evidence exists in other groups that has not been shared on here, then please let us all know. So for now, I can fully see those that believe in scenarios (B) or (C) joining up, but those that believe in (A) I'm not yet convinced, but still open to persuasion..’

======

‘..where does any awards for damages come from : if there are no funds, then the court will chase damages from Amit’s estate but if there are some funds, do shareholders lose some of their pro rata proceeds eg. current estimate is US $0.2975 per share, will that change?..’

=======

‘.. it is my belief that Cloudtag was a company set up for the purposes of committing fraud with fake reports, fake reported sales and interest, and most likely with fake associations with creditable persons, if you look at all the RNS's from the beginning, the history of non delivery all signed off by the NOMAD it's pretty damning along with people exiting as the penny was dropping but I'm fully supportive of Tim's plan to follow this through to a conclusion..’

* are the NOMADS being held accountable?

========

Hopefully 1st week of October will then see video conferences being held by legal counsel. Some of the questions aired so far are as follows. Please input any additional queries.

======

‘..why do we have to wait for funding to call an EGM, pretty sure we could have got 10% of holders to call this anytime in the last year or so!..’

======

‘.. If the lawyers are only going after him for the lies (assuming it is all lies) around the DaaP deals worth $50m and $225m then I am still not aware on what basis I could claim for damages since I have have not suffered any loss due to all these false announcements/promises. 

If however the lawyers believed they could go after him for the lies surrrounding the Onitor etc, which were the basis of me purchasing my shares many years ago, then that would be different. 

I can fully understand those that believe that the DaaP exists and deals were done, who want the lawyers to go after ABH for their share of the $50m/$225m, but if you don't believe the DaaP and deals exist (and you never bought any additional shares on the back of those lies) then I still don't see the point. 

I was assuming the 173 must be of the belief that the money is there and just isin't being paid out….’

======

‘..Amit won't agree to any EGM, he likely won't even respond. Waste of money asking for one!..’

=======

‘.. I think much would depend on how narrowly the legal action would focus (& of course what can be proven!) I think there are four different phases for potential legal scrutiny:



1) trading while ctag was a listed company, when many pis were induced to buy based on promises about the onitor, although no working onitor was ever demonstrated in any independently verifiable context. 

2) the brief & final phase of listed trading when pis were led to believe funding was coming from a placing/novum, which was then suddenly cancelled because of a “miscommunication”. 3) the phase when some pis were induced to buy unlisted shares by amit making claims / promises about a planned IPO, which never happened, & with no independently verifiable evidence available that anything of the kind was genuinely being progressed. 

4) the phase when some pis were induced to buy unlisted shares by statements & promises being made on the ctag website about supposed ‘licensing’ & ‘DaaP’ deals, but also according to several posters through direct contacts to individuals from amit by email / phone / text..’

======

‘…what is the cost of implementing an EGM, with possible additional legal representation being covered from St.Vincent..’

========

TBC.

Grow up bud and try to behave. Suggest you read it again.

There are two figures given : 10% of the equity & 75% of the vote.

The 1st then necessitates approximately 100M shares.

The 2nd then necessitates 75% of the show of hands at the EGM.

The ‘show of hands’ also covers shareholders voting by deed poll, via mail.

I stated at the start of the legal enquiries that my specific target was for the shareholder group to acquire at least 75 shareholders willing to contribute as I considered that there might likely be 25 shareholders who would support Amit and so vote against the group. Tim has then exceeded that figure comfortably with almost double the number of shareholders that I thought would be needed to carry the vote. And Amit is currently losing considerable support.