Member Info for jimbob1983

Can someone remind me of the target date for the dual listing, if this has been published? Thanks

Beevorma, I sort of agree with you. Why would a third party over 10x or plus the current share price. They would just do a hostile take over and start to acquire shares on the open market at their current price. Not aware if there are any anchor shareholders who could block such an event (eg 25% holders). Been here since 2018 or 2019, been a long ride, keen for the story to conclude now, one way or another

Heard all this before during the last major suspension, and ultimately EUA went to the moon during that period (noting the strong decline in the years after). I am sure there will all manner of noise just like before. Those who have been here a while have the experience: hold firm.

You infer the derogatory tone, it was strictly presented in a factual matter. This is a public platform, I don't require anyone's permissions to share my opinion. Just because you didn't want or ask for an opinion does not mean everyone around you must be silent. There may be times in life, dear Dusterhater, that you receive uninvited feedback, opinions and views that you didnt ask for, or agree with. At best those reactions may upset you, at worst they may prejudice you (and on occasions you may have absolutely no recourse). That is life, a lesson you have not seems to have learnt yet. But life will teach you, one way or another in due course.

Interesting response, I have offered an opinion, and there is a probability that the end result will be "x" (being an unknown figure) of pence on every pound invested will be returned to investors. That is the way the Court will refer to it. It's just a matter of fact, a realistic and common outcome, hide from it if you wish. Not sure how you determine that such a view is pompous, bitter or jealous (about what I cannot imagine). The reality is that I have experience in this area and instead of engaging in a spirited discussion about the possibility of various outcomes, and the probability attached to those outcomes, you have beaten down what you feel is an opposing view, which you clearly find offensive (for some reason). In a few years when this all comes to a conclusion I am confident you will remember this interaction.

Sorry, allow me to use words that may be more suited for you: I know a lot of things about legal stuff. You invited comments "Interesting points for discussion 😮" . I contributed to that discussion, and you have become defensive and seem confused by the words I use. I suspect my view that there is little prospect for compensation for future loses, in addition to pain and suffering, loss of amenity has upset you. But such is life. We are not here to please you #snowflake

I wouldn't say super duper, just well versed, and enough to offer an opinion concerning the comments in the chat.

If you win, RE a litigation claim, it's not taxable which is a positive. No chance in hell anyone will be compensated for future losses or let alone "stress". Be lucky to receive X pence on the pound at the end of it all.

Entirely separate. And the investors don't bring the criminal proceedings, the Government (Crown) does. Somewhat out of our control. Plus an out of Court Settlement would be without prejudice, so wouldnt help the criminal proceedings in any way.

"No matter what anybody ever tells you about china, russia, Mexico etc......the 2 most corrupt countries in the world are the US and the UK by far"

Agreeable the two biggest tax heavens too. But rolled out in such a sophisticated way that many either cannot understand it or never see it. Which is ironic really as the US lead the attack on tax evasion via the FATCA rules, only to then becomes a country that so many individuals can use to avoid their domestic reporting (and due tax disclosure) outside of the USA.

If you were in the region 22 years ago and knew why you here!!! you are the problem (contributed to it apparently) and reason the new generation are moving you to the side lines. Nice admission.

Lack of global commercial awareness. Your statement is no different to : "they support the other football team, we should fight them " . I doubt there's any means to change your mind about the system and small island you know nothing about. Let the geographical witch hunt continue. Meanwhile the uk has some of the world's most complex and effective legislation available to minimize taxation for foreign investment. Wake up.

Hell. Got to stop bashing the Cayman Islands. It's well regulated and has some of the most up standing professions in their field. There's more issues and loop holes closer to home than in cayman.

Don't think it's dishonest at all. Rather practical. Gag orders / agreements are common place. flagging a possible outcome (arguably highly likely based on various assumptions) so that the various posters believing that the group will secure an outcome for them personally are aware. Just because they sent a message to a email account doesn't mean you are included "legally" in any action against the company. There's a lot of confusion here on due process, the realities of legal disputes and compromise agreements. Of course there are alternative outcomes overall but I wasn't commenting on them.

Precisely. That's how the company will handle the matter initially, and absolutely what counsel would suggest as a first step to close off the issue. (If they claim presented has any merit) The offer made without prejudice will be generous enough to compensate and further encourage them to cease all activities via an NDA. Then all of sudden the closed group will disappear.

Shareholders can't change BOD decisions. Remove directors yes. Which can be highly influential. But in practice hate to do.

If the shareholder group is indeed real and doing all they have said at someone their lawyers will formally petition a class action and invite shareholders to apply to be included in that legal process. At which stage all correspondence about the matter will come from the lawyers rather than the closed group. Until that happens the closed group are acting independently. In all likelihood and if the group has teeth the company would enter an agreement with them cease activities and compensate them, and only them or the leader. It's that simple. Essentially a deal to go away, after which you'll ever hear from the group again. The lawyers who have been engaged will be acting for particular people not unknown shareholders. I highlight this because I see many posts of people 'trusting' their interests are being represented. Which they are not sadly. And also can we stop bashing the Cayman Islands :)

Just want to bring this one to the top of the list...

I wish you were right Richard. But the idea that the "SP value doesn't matter" narrative is simply incorrect. That statement has been kicked around this board a lot, and it always confused me. The SP value is what the market has decided the company is worth, that is an important metric. It matters very much, especially to the proposed buyers. And it will be blended into the advanced discussions, if such things are truly in play. Which I hope they are. As I have said, hoping this will work out, and I believe the sale will go ahead, but we may need a bit of a reality check. The days of treasure island, rums all round, and fantasy etc are well behind us. Must focus on the reality and the positives ahead.

Unfortunately it's very much like SXX, at a high level. We now have a operating deadline, in the absence of any other funding. That materially impacts the negotiating table and any offer that may come. As mentioned, it's the commercial fact pattern I am referring to, not the individual aspects of the company. Mark my words, I think a sale will come, but around the 5-7pm value at best.