RE: AGM14 Oct 2025 19:21
Bfd , I posted a perfectly drafted response to rebut son of cyborg to show that he was not clearly understanding of the English written , which I restate below;
GST sent an arbitration notice to the sellers of Semnet.
The reason is an alleged breach of non-compete clauses and breach of employee obligations.
The goal is to recover profits for Semnet.
This is a straightforward, factual corporate disclosure.
The Poster's Narrative: Connecting Unrelated Dots
The poster is using other facts to create a context that implies something more sinister. Here’s how:
Fact: There was a 2023 SICC lawsuit where Semnet (the company GST bought) sued Ypsilon and won.
Fact: Two directors of Ypsilon (the company that lost the lawsuit) are former Semnet employees.
Speculative Narrative: The poster strongly implies that these former employees (who are the "Sellers" GST is now arbitrating against) set up Ypsilon to compete with Semnet before the sale, and that GST's board foolishly bought a company (Semnet) that was already in this legal mess.
The Problem with this Narrative:
The GST arbitration notice is about breaches of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 5 December 2023. This refers to actions taken after GST bought the company, or at least breaches of warranties given at the time of the sale.
The poster's narrative incorrectly or misleadingly conflates this with the 2023 lawsuit, which was a separate commercial dispute between Semnet and a third party (Ypsilon) over a specific contract. The SICC judgment was a win for Semnet, proving the strength of its contracts, not a liability.
The GST arbitration notice is factual.
The poster is using selective facts (the SICC case, director backgrounds) to construct a narrative that the Semnet acquisition was flawed and the current arbitration is linked to that old dispute. This connection is speculative, misleading, and not supported by the stated reason for the new arbitration (breach of the SPA's non-compete). The intent appears to be to portray GST's management as negligent and the acquisition as problematic, which goes beyond the established facts.
Now GROK OFF
Sign In
Follow the stocks
