Member Info for dougb189

Good question Conrad and is that I will then add that to the list that I just compiled, which was obtained from going through the threads on the LSE bb. Guessing that shareholders should have video conference hopefully next week with UK counsel & that these questions can then get aired.

The metrics involved in raising an EGM for a company based offshore are a bit more complicated than for those closer to home. You could certainly still attempt to raise an EGM but that doesn’t guarantee that anything will actually get processed.

It was then considered that having legal oversight to the process is the best way forward, such that (1) if there is then a no-show by Amit that counsel can then act on that, or (2) then Amit shows us the company books, then again counsel can act on the results of that.

We now have 10% of the equity needed to then raise an EGM thanks to Chandra & his group but that is only part of the equation.. you then need to obtain 75% of the vote to carry a Special Resolution for an audit of the company books.

You can still read that some shareholders still believe in their rockets flying to the moon, etc, etc. Hence why there is no rush. I stated a month or so ago that likely Xmas for EGM but is now looking possible for early November. By which time, those remaining shareholders still undecided, will then be accepting that Amit needs to be led, if we are to eventually get to the bottom of this ongoing saga.

Next week will then see legal counsel ‘sell’ his opening arguments on both the benefit of calling an EGM and of the follow through eg. Court case, after the results of an EGM are known, ie. ABH no-show or even maybe ABH suddenly distributing $279.5M.

Wouldn’t use the term ‘deadline’ as the £20k is not an arbitrary figure but will be a best guess inclusive of some margin, but guessing that your estimate of a date near end of October will not be too far off the mark, for calling an EGM. No deadline needed.

Likely it will take a week (1st week Oct.) for lead counsel to present his case via Teams (or whatever) & that he will initially help facilitate an EGM. Likely see a shareholder account then being set up.

Likely in week 2 Oct., will be consolidating the figures (10% equity) & at which point a polite but official request will be sent to ABH stating that holders of 10% of the equity request an EGM, for which I believe he has 7 days to respond.

Likely by end of week 3 Oct., will then see a formal request stating that the shareholders will be holding an EGM and that then comes with a 2 week notice period, which then puts an EGM at near the end of the 1st week in November.

Delays ? & this imv is likely eg. Amit agrees, then finds legit excuse to disagree. This I’m guessing might occur several times (so now it is Xmas) and at which point the legal beagles will say enough is enough (now they understand where the Pi’s are coming from) and they then take control.

November EGM if Amit hides under his rock, but suspecting that he will appear to play nicely, hence a probability of delays occurring. The bonus though is that the shareholders will eventually have got the ball rolling. His time is marked (as is his nice wee apartment).

I think the clue was in the title of the email :

Dear Cloudtag Shareholder,

30th August 2024.

“..The idea of a UK Group Action to follow both civil and criminal litigation was discussed as well how we should call an EGM as a first phase of a Litigation Plan… If Amit Ben-Haim refuses to carry out shareholder instructions and does not produce the required documentation this will then facilitate additional support going forward with Phase 2 [court proceedings]. If Amit Ben-Haim responds positively to the EGM resolution and shows the paying agent holding the $50m licensing funds as of the Update 10th April 2024, this will again enable shareholders to decide how best to proceed……We can visualise the Plan as follows:-

Litigation Plan:

Phase 1: Call EGM

* somik

* somik

*……At this point in time we cannot be certain what form of legal action we would follow. The next two phases are therefore a general view of what action we might take. Further action and what form it might take is dependent on our calling the EGM, whether or not Amit Ben-Haim provides the required documentation and whether shareholders agree to UK Group Action.

I’ll wager, that by the time counsel briefs the GLO,

That figure will have doubled, then Minus one. Lol.

My apologies Steelbru, but i just didn’t think it worth explaining as your mindset seemed to be somewhat blinkered;

“- The defendant made a false representation

- The defendant knew the representation was false or was reckless as to its truth or falsity

- The defendant intended to deceive the claimant

- The claimant was induced to act or refrain from acting as a result of the representation

- The claimant suffered loss as a result "

I never saw a reply from you when I pointed out that 99% of us won't have suffered a loss as a result of the lies ..”

Irrespective of what i believe, would suggest that you hang in there as what will then occur is that any legal beagles chasing a Group Litigation will then confer with said group.

Guessing that in a few weeks or so you will then get a chance to air your questions to a far more diligent & supportive paralegal than i might ever wish to be.

That is correct Ms.T., one has to opt-In to then collect on any possible damages.

It might be that the threat of legal action then facilitates a distribution of fund/s. Or it might be that Amit still prefers to hide under a rock and then needs to be hauled out. Not insurmountable. He will face a reckoning irrespective of any fund/s suddenly appearing.

So both scenarios would still see damages being sought but under different metrics eg. Pi's might then find that their appetites have changed if say, there are fund/s available. The metrics involved in any claims for damages will very likely evolve.

There is currently a facility for ALL shareholders to opt in which will then facilitate finding out what is or is not in the company books & what we can then reasonably expect to aim for, when chasing damages.

Lol bud, but the Ben-Haim brothers working with Israel ?!

That would be the very last avenue for the Israelis :

"Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on October 2, 2012 [by Chen Ma’anit]

Was one of Israel's leading biotech entrepreneurs complicit in the theft of valuable technological secrets from the state? Today, the State of Israel filed a NIS 40 million lawsuit in the Tel Aviv District Court against Prof. Shlomo Ben-Haim, one of the wealthiest and most prominent entrepreneurs in biotech in Israel, and against his business partner, Dr. Amir Arav, who was formerly a scientist at the Agricultural Research Organization (ARO) - the Volcani Center. The claim is that the pair stole from the state valuable technologies related to freezing cells, tissues, and entire organs, developed by Dr. Arav in the course of his work at the Volcani Center.

In addition to Prof. Ben-Haim and Dr. Arav, Core Dynamics and IMT, companies which they own, and which deal in preservation of biological tissues through freezing, are also being sued. The suit claims that, through these companies, the defendants stole the technology and registered in their names patents belonging to the state. Udi Damari, who was Dr. Arav's business partner, and Yehudit Natan, who was a research assistant to Dr. Arav during the relevant period, are also being sued.." ..it further alleges that Shlomo initiated some of the events..

These two brothers work hand in hand.

That ain’t the way it works.

If this was in the US then your argument would be correct.

Your question was then based on a false belief as outlined above and that secondly I raised a hypothetical question which implied a suggestion that may or may not be real and for which you foolishly inferred as being applicable to all shareholders. There are two years olds who can give better counter-arguments.

To reiterate I ‘hypothetically questioned’ so implied a suggestion, that those who consistently posted damaging gifs of false hopes should perhaps be refrained from claiming damages.

And with what you now know, then you will have realised that the hypothetical question is not possible : All those who are shareholders qualify can opt-in to a GLO and are then able to take a slice of any damages.

It has therefore then become an ethical question. God help us.

Trombone, your argument is as convoluted as your maths.

If the bank then swindles its members (inc. account holders?) such that damages are then paid to members / account holders, then IF in the UK, all those that opt-in to a Group Litigation Order can then expect to see a share of the damages awarded.

What you seem to be implying is that if 89 of those members repetitively posted online that there is absolutely no swindle occurring… that they should then be entitled to damages ?? Sounds rather foolish bud.

nb. Group Litigation Order UK :

“ Depending on the nature of the claims and type of class, notice can be provided by mail, email, publication in newspapers and magazines, advertisements on television, radio, and internet websites and by any other method likely to come to the attention of class members. Solicitors may also provide information regarding a class action they are investigating on their firm website.”

Take note of the media platforms.

Strange coincidence that as the legal action then gets better focused, there are then ‘conflicting’ suggestions being posted by a small group of devotees.

Hypothetical question : would those that then post those foolish but ‘damaging’ gifs enticing the long suffering shareholders to believe that something may actually exist (there’s never ever been any substance) should those same persons, then be entitled (hypothetically, if one is a devotee) to any awards against the Ben-Haim estates received by shareholders for… damages ?

One wonders how that small group of devotees will then react when Amit is then tasked to attend an EGM and then fails to comply.

If everything is hunky dory and above-board, what possible reasons could Amit then give for not attending or for not agreeing to a 3rd party review of the books..

& what possible reasons could the devotees then give for non-attendance or non-compliance by Amit in response to a reasonable request from a significant group of shareholders..

Allegedly, and last week Amit had told his devotees

‘its in the post’

Talking of insanity;

The regular Thursday nights silly gifs from Chandra,

are perhaps indicative of a regular pattern of self abuse *hic*

there being no other apparently obvious rational explanation

for such repetitive irrational behaviour.

Just some of the hoops that shareholders need to address (thanks Mr.S & US counsel)

1. Verify Company Status and Jurisdiction:

- Investigate the current registration status of the company, given its move from the Cayman Islands to St. Vincent.

- Determine if the company is indeed unregistered and the implications of this status.

- Identify which jurisdiction's laws apply to the company's governance.

2. Review Company Articles and Bylaws:

- Obtain and analyse the company's articles of association and bylaws.

3. Assess Shareholder Rights:

- Determine the rights of shareholders under the applicable jurisdiction's laws.

- Verify if these rights are affected by the company's current registration status.

4. Shareholder Analysis:

- Conduct a thorough analysis of the current shareholder structure.

- Identify major shareholders and potential allies for the resolution.

5. Legal Consultation:

- Consult with local legal experts in St. Vincent and potentially the Cayman Islands.

- Seek advice on the legality and process of calling an EGM given the company's unusual status.

6. Regulatory Compliance Check:

- Investigate any regulatory requirements or restrictions from FTSE/AIM regarding EGMs for listed companies.

- Assess if the company's unregistered status affects its listing status.

7. Communication with Company Secretary/ Chairman:

- Attempt to contact the company secretary or equivalent to inquire about the proper channels for calling an EGM.

Numerous challenges, hence why I suggested to Tim that he should tell the shareholders to reconsider their choices.. at Xmas.

Further Incoherent argument :

“SO after spending that money on a lawyer if you are successful for Asking for an EGM the ceo can change the goal post and say you need 90% voter backing to ask for an EGM.”

And yet incredibly this nonsense is preceded by :

“ the Company may at any time and from time to time by Special Resolution alter or amend these Articles in whole or in part.”

So it appears to be that Amit can ‘change the goal post… by Special Resolution’ ?!

So…..that will be Another EGM then ?! Totally incoherent argument.

Amit has indeed changed the ‘goal posts’ several times already by said Special Resolution and each time he did so, he then had to call up an EGM.. hence “Special Resolution”. This was then done so that Amit could amend the Articles (mostly article 17) for allowing additional shares to be raised. [St.Helier, Jersey was one such EGM]. Amit no doubt then throws in a few more hoops that Pi’s have to crawl through but this now has legal counsel from St.Vincent’s & the UK monitoring that it is then in compliance with the By-Laws.

Going to Phase 2 likely requires sufficient enough evidence of a fraudulent act occurring such that a litigation funding company will then take the reigns covering the cost & insurance but this ain’t happening simply on account of “coz we all know it’s a fraud”. There has to be significant detail.

Going directly to Phase 2 and I suspect at a minimum this would require Amit’s refusal to comply with By-Laws OR that a witness came forward with credible evidence of Amit selling shares After the sales agreement had been posted OR that a witness would testify that Amit posted possible forgeries eg. J&J or SRS… there has to be significant detail.

The By-Laws of St.Vincent [where Ctag have been registered since Q4 2019] set up guidelines for shareholders to call for an egm & if Amit fails to respond is again likely indicative of a fraud occurring.

As IF there was indeed $279.5M worth of funding then it would be extremely reckless for a ceo to then go against the legal regulations that the company operates under.

As the same By-Laws / Articles also allow for Take Over & directors being removed, so extremely reckless for Amit to ignore IF there was actually $279.5M sitting around.

(hopefully though Tim ain’t going to over-complicate this EGM by asking for any further resolutions, at least till we know if it is all a fraud or not). If Amit then refuses to respond this imv would be suggestive of fraud occurring & hence guessing that lawyers might suggest we go straight to Phase 2; chasing damages from the Ben-Haim estates.

The SVG By-Laws have almost exactly the same 205 articles as the company operated under when its jurisdiction was the Cayman Islands [2010 - 2019, with being on overseas participant on the UK LSE register from March 2013 till December 2019].

Articles 79 through to 84 then set up the framework for holding an EGM.

Then raises questions; Why &/or When might Amit be reckless in his responses to an EGM and that then has one pondering IF any of the $279.5M exists, could it then be stolen ? Which then suggests a need for forensic accounting.

Unfortunately bud, several others have also raised that argument with much supporting evidence & they have then not been able to convince either the police nor the FCA nor the SFO nor any other authority that this is as you believe, a fraud. The weakness in that argument is that an Onitor was displayed & it is then totally irrelevant that it was crap as even displaying crap would then negate a charge of fraud.

So after the crap Onitor occurred did Amit then sell additional shares on a fraudulent tale of sales occurring ? And i suspect that this would be a lot easier to prove than stating the Onitor was a fraud.

An EGM should give an indication of what has been passed through the company books.

There is then IMV that the fraud has occurred more recently and this i suspect is a lot more easier to prove than historical complaints centred on miscreant Nomads.

Very few if any of the chief rampers will assist in any investigation as they still recklessly believe that Amit has been truthful.

A complaint of fraud is the only approach that gets the police directly involved.

The police will not take an interest “if Cloudtag was a genuine attempt at a business adventure that legitimately tired to sell an item and sought backing for it, and maybe did make a software sale and obtained profit, but for whatever reason has failed to pay investors… being seen in the eyes of the law as a bad business investment and a civil issue between investors and Cloudtag “

The police though will take an interest “if 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’’.

Currently there is “Official” interest by two seperate police forces into Cloudtag and also that the FCA are now liaising with them.

My suspicion is that the case will likely fall somewhere between The Onitor being a crap business venture but that funds were fraudulently raised subsequently. It then imv hinges significantly on those that received any forged documents & also those who bought shares after the sales were announced, which then ties in with the above police reply. Should they so wish, I suspect they could quite easily put Amit in the spotlight and he would then likely be answerable to a criminal case of fraud.

There is an ongoing investigation so likely Amit is already being questioned. Those peeps who are then able to compose coherent argument should then be writing to their relevant police force & to the FCA, even if it is for the 2nd or 3rd time. There is a lot of pressure being put on the authorities to find a resolution, be it criminal or for it to then be civil litigation eg. thru Tim’s efforts.

The assumption that this is a scam as whined about by some lost divi every day for the last 7 years is then only worth jack sheet, without any legal approach forthcoming.

Some eejits would happily sit here till Xmas simply to await the next company notice & again whine “i told you so!”

You only need to look at posters history to then see that 50% do not partake in any other LSE bb forums. And the feedback from several on here is that many of their peers simply walked away from this bb on account of it being so toxic. Very few shareholders read this bb.

At a loss to understand Tim’s approach ; he requires X more people and yet fails to send the well written 07:47 post via email to those shareholders who gave up on CTAG a long time ago. This is well catalogued.

Perhaps needs to employ a journalist from The Sun and get them to write up a front page header that would then grab sleeping shareholders attention when next they browse quickly across their inboxes :

“Amit forgeries surface” &/or “Amit found hiding under a rock” etc., etc..

That’s at least one point you raise bud.

From what Ive heard there is a list of peeps waiting to see if there is then a legal approach occurring after the results of an EGM are known. And some that are willing to pay all legal expenses (prior to litigation funding) for a nice slice of any damages.

Numerous legal teams might then see many new clients seeking a share of any possible damages.

Those that are with the shareholders group i am guessing will then be asked to partake in phase 2, which is centred on seeking litigation funding. Hence spreading the cost.

Tim will perhaps need to clarify who might then be clients on the 2nd round. One would like to believe in fair play & that those who commit to phase 1 are then those that get to contribute to phase 2 (i think a nominal fee c.£200 was mentioned).

Guessing there might then be a free for all. An assumption like. Which might then necessitate a small period of radio silence, whilst the claim is being filed…