Member Info for katstrangler

My reply is for massiveloser, not anyone else who comments on the C-block mention...

You dumbass!

this news, if accurate, is good news for the court case, as it would explain the mechanism and logic for the price GST are demanding. but i dont' expect you to understnad as you don't know anything about the company you're invested in. you're better off on holiday so you don't waffle on this bb. leave it to serious discussions... go and rise your infatable in the hotel pool!

(but maybe i should have bought some shares in the morning before posting this!!!) : )

anwyay, massive, THAT's how you post somthing about the company and not just the waffle you... waffle!

have a good thursday, all.

Ai trawl of singapore's ACRA says that they've both been linked to this company (though i can find nothing on them)and that dapane chong, named as a new defendant, would have been the conduit, if true, of stolen clients, with Semnet's servies white labelled by C-Bliock and used as their own products.

whether there's ANY indication of this anywhere or whether it's an ai fabrication is for you eager beavers to discover, but, if the culture fund theory is correct and there's some evidence of this 'other company' then i'd be surprised if there wasn't some renewed interest in the sp.

it might, if it were true, be a good element for the MICA application.

might just be the anti-Chaebol negaitive angle that holds just as much water but wouldn't hurt to think it through and check on the breadcrumbs and see if they lead anywhere...

I begin to wonder if there's not a vulture fund sitting inside the nominee accounts looking at the summons and hoovering up any cheap shares going as a bet on a successful outcome of the case?

it might be that the shares being sold are from Mervyn and EE cashing in to prep for the court case.

interestingly, ai comments suggest adding Daphane to the defendant list suggests she was well aware of the actions to siphon work away from Semnet and she knows where the bodies are buried.

while a vulture fund couldn't be identified, it might go some way to explainging where all these cheap shares from the last 3 days have gone.

and, as ai says, it coul be argued that the reason for the arbitration failing is the new, unidentified company that 'siphoned' off the work, is worth more than the sums claimed and so worth fighting for, from both sides.

one wonders if this doesn't end up with being funded by an independent company for a signficant stake in the result, depending on the probably positive outcome for the company?

have to see if there is any response by the accused in the next few days.

I think that headline sums up the situation nicely.

GST doesn't need to 'angravation' (geddit?) of trying to fulfill stablecoin process when having spent the best part of a 6months trying and failing for MIICA. it needs to go fully in with one thing and with serious, full-bodied commitment, not fannny about with every option under the sun and do all of them badly. if MICA was important enough to keep investors hoping for six months then it'd be outrageous to suddenly decide it was never that important, esp, with Poland on a very small fuse.

it's spent (presumably significant) funds on setting up lithuania office, what with having a ceo and 'several staff' but also paying a third party to fulfill transations so it needs to be seen to transfer that paperwork in house... it also bought finferro at a pemium, i'm guessing, when it had to pull a rabbit out of the hat to transfer Bake operations to Poland, after applying too late to get MICA application fulfilled. no clue how far they got in the process except it takes more months that they had from sept > dec so hope they're not going to dick about with the reapplication, like last time, otherwise you'll see the price crash if they don't apply or fail to apply in time... again.

atm. their silence speaks volumes for them and it must be stomach churning for those that saw this as a money printing machine and threw more than they should based on the incessant ramping.

it really needs to give a good update on Semnet or reapplication for MICA (but preferably, both) to at least see this back at pre suspension prices.

at 0.35 it's either the bargain of the year or it's slowly starting to spin around the plughole and there's not a lot to be done, at this price a most, i'm sure are so deep in the red as to have inconsequential amounts left, after two years of failed ambitions.

i really hope something good turns up sooner than later because another week of nothing and, unless there's proof of life or some new buyers' deep, deep conviction through buying, this'll be 0.3 next week, if not sooner!

Leew, there is ALWAYS something going on in the background. the problem is you don't get any clues from BoD as to what they are!

wasn't it only in december there were promises of many more podcasts to come? if the BoD can't be held to their word then the only thing keeping everyone is is the hope that the thing that's 'going on' will somehow rerate the sp.

it's very easy to forget that only back in september, after the suspension, folk were shouting that the sp was going to recover from 0.65ish back to the 0.9s.

on that basis it's now at least 'buy one, get one free' but that only works if the thing hasn't past its expiry date. i mean, just how hard is it for the BoD to post any small, positive thing?

I would say that someone who repeatedly buys and points to the live price they paid is evidence enough of influence, esp, when a 'person' buys repeatedly, but without stating if they ever sell, is putting undue influence on a bb. it's why stating such information is meant to be forbidden as it's patnetly an influence if theyse seen to be a hnwi but without going through the legal hoops. bypassing required legalities to hide one's position or information is exactly what abuse is... it's the whole point of TR1s...you don't get around it by saying 'more fool anyone who follows' as there'd be no point in anyone posting, in that case.

It's not 'personal', it's about undue influence on a share price by an indivifual and/or a concerted party. that is everything to do with GST and its share price...

if one is under whatever the legal minimum requirement is then all well and good BUT i was replying to someone who said they'd followed billy and his buys... and i'm sure they wouldn't have been the only one. and i'm very sure potential buyers wouldn't have been too fussed or influenced by my own occasional buying or selling.

But that's why folk get pulled into a position, when they see someone purporting to have 100million shares and 'speaking' as if they have an inside track...

That's why we have TR1s and, tbh, it would normally be a very suspicious position for an HNWI with a TR1 to be posting on a bb, daily and they'd certainly be called out on it, for being able to manipulate the sp more than even... Chaebol!

i doubt they'd be able to post on a bb under an alias if it were discovered.

undue influence means they rarely have long term account on bbs.

Not sure where they're coming from, though...

Yes, another 4.3million... but, again, at 0.36.

any other day and i would have expected 15million sells to have crashed the price to 0.3...

Be interesting to see how this all shakes out...

another 2million...

...exactly because it'd be at around 0.3 - 0.35. they can't average down sufficiently from 2p by buying in the market.

Not that i mind but being close to 10% up on very low trading (not really sure where the shares are coming from, too...)

Except there's noone dumping that many shares as to affect their averaging down.

if they wanted to spend £100k they'll need 33million shares, at 0.3p easier for them to do a placing, to the detriment of the existing holders but to their benefit. and they've shown they don't really care about dilution when it matters. but, obviously, no point in them averaging down if there's not a future positive news to come.

Still think it's a dodgy share, though... just not as dodgy as it was at 0.65.

Not sure what you're saying, Bfd. the selling of the treasury shares might well have been off book but they'd have been at the then price. the buying of the shares now , even if off book, would be done at the lower price. but, as i don't see there being an HNWIs about, interested in buying OR selling, i'm just using the market sells are being absorbed by a possible large buyer... hence the treasury share recoop.

not saying it's right just looking for why those sells aren't dipping the price towards 0.3 as there are no printed reciprocal buys.

... but, more likely the defendants would rather hand back the treasury shares total, as they'd still make significant profit on them. if the case was in GST's favour, i wouldn't accept that as there was wider damage done to the sp based on their offloading so would seek reparation for the wider costs... but that's just a supposition based on the fact that the sp isn't sinking on the sells.