Member Info for Legalease

Oh I intend to evidence my point, not yours though, but as I said l’ll do it when it suits me not you Walter:)

The super valuable diamonds were not being sold at the tender that’s has just finished.

… Law Society of Nania:) keep going Walter,….

I’ll stay for mid tier.

Vast/ gulf/ Pristine Services/ Trump/ Tajikistan which combo?

.. well that would be very exciting for holders…

.. well that would be very exciting for holders…

Walter, I love how well versed you are in everything. Literally a legend in your own lunchtime:)

So you can copy and paste chat gpt5 Walter , shame you can’t apply any reasoning to what you read:) you will also note that lawyers with any sense don’t use Chat gpt 5 because the ones that do find out the hardway that it has it’s significant limitations

You may be an expert in being a Walter but you are not an expert in company law. There is no evidence at all that vast is trading insolvent. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. Report away:)

I made no comment about whether Vast was solvent. I simply pointed out that there is no winding up order against VAST, given you inferred the same.

In terms of the success rate for tenders, as I said, we should be confident that the diamonds will be sold for the reason I have already stated:) the stats aren’t hidden and they’re not secret, you just need to know where to look.

… 7.59 or 8.05?

You’re absolutely right ASI, you won’t find a notice of winding up until it served. That was precisely my point. It hasn’t been served. VAST is entirely solvent.

Obvs some…:)

.. all weekend and sum. Until 7.59 unless

An RNA comes first..

… come on Walter (Mitty) do speak up!

👂

… ****.

You do appreciate I am going to drag this out all weekend;)

I also appreciate I missed a comma. Put it down to the magnum of nyetimber…

You’re absolutely right Asi. It was 92% my bad.