Member Info for MassiveRay

Yes you're entitled to your subjective opinion chubs but the problem is you make out like it's an objective truth. There is your mistake.

The pump and dump prediction you made was wrong

The sp rise wouldn't last the afternoon was wrong

The imminent raise claim you made was wrong

The sints are holding up the sp was wrong

The defendants will be counter suing was wrong, ( the beggars would prefer arbitration)

And the rest :)

Oh dear - please be coherent...

They dont have to RNS it if the Venue hasn't changed.

And I am out :)

Your calculated gamble is of assumptions without knowing the evidence that gst might have to demonstrate to the judge at the stay hearing that could broaden the case outside of the SPA. I dont know this and nether do you.

Ironically, the more sophisticated legal/commercial view here is probably:

“there are credible arguments on both sides, and the exact scope of the ruling still appears unresolved publicly.”

That’s a far more intellectually disciplined position than:

declaring total certainty while key information remains non-public.

Also you're not a litigator and dont have access to the legal documents so your absolute certainty is comical at best. And will be addressed if they dont get full stay and added to the list of your escalating failed predictions.

If they dont get full stay which is what they absolutely are going for then I think its a good thing..

Guys be warned katstrangler has suggested many things that were drastically untrue. She's also stated many times that she is a trader first and foremost. And her game is to make £100 here or there and will only post depending on where her trade sits. Unfortunately I've had years of seeing her in action and its also typical behavior from her. You can thank the pandemic for giving her this hobby.

Im happy with even a partial stay as it still puts pressure on the defendants as they still face public exposure.

Yes enki. For all we know the defendants are wishing they settlled earlier and want it back to arbitration to get back some leverage and settle. And I can think of a few reasons on that list that push the claim out of the scope of the SPA

Some examples of allegations that could potentially broaden a dispute beyond a narrow SPA contractual issue might include things like:

Misuse of confidential information

e.g. taking customer data, pricing models, internal strategy documents, or proprietary operational information after the acquisition.

Breach of fiduciary duties

e.g. directors/managers allegedly acting against the company’s interests rather than merely breaching a purchase agreement warranty.

Diversion of business/customers

e.g. steering clients, contracts, staff, or opportunities away from Semnet after the transaction.

Interference with operations

e.g. alleged conduct damaging relationships with regulators, partners, banks, or counterparties.

Post-acquisition misconduct

actions occurring after completion that are not strictly tied to SPA representations/warranties.

Fraudulent concealment or deceit

if one side alleges deliberate concealment beyond ordinary contractual breaches.

Unauthorised disclosure/use of trade secrets

classic “law of confidence” territory.

Conspiracy or coordinated misconduct

involving individuals who were not direct SPA signatories.

Employee/management misconduct

especially where claims involve duties owed independently as officers/employees rather than purely as sellers under the SPA.

I wonder what evidence gst has to have increased the initial claim up to $4.2m - which has been widened outside of the SPA ?

Almost 3pm in Singapore and the 4th June listing is still active. The defendants were trying their best to avoid facing the consequences of their actions in court. Let's hope the stay application is rejected and the defendants feel the squeeze.

Ignore katstrangler she has a history of calling things wrong and trolling boards. A very strange individual..

Take note Chbs... nobody here knows.

This is also why procedural behaviour alone tells you very little. People online are trying to infer ultimate strength from:

stay applications,

lack of defence filings,

hearing dates,

or settlement posture.

But if either side possesses genuinely damaging evidence not yet public, that could completely reshape:

settlement incentives,

confidence levels,

and ultimate outcomes later.

Which is why experienced litigators are usually much more cautious about certainty than forum posters tend to be.

You have to admit. No rns of venue change or the 4th June conference case listing date being struck off points to the defendants weren't fully successful at the very least.

Many people go not guilty chaebol even despite being caught on camera. And never stops a big time barrister filing a weak defence. Its called a fishing expedition and hoping something sticks. So if you take this as comfort from the defendants more fool you.

Oh dear chaebol..

There isn't a universal set of guilty traits... my my that IQ

Whether:

there is a full stay,

partial stay,

or refusal, none of those outcomes automatically prevent settlement discussions continuing.

In fact, commercial settlements often happen:

after stay rulings,

during arbitration,

during court proceedings,

after mediation failures,

or even shortly before full hearings/trials.

And in this dispute specifically, there are several reasons why settlement remains plausible under almost any procedural scenario:

prior mediation already showed willingness to negotiate,

nobody has yet secured a knockout,

legal costs continue rising,

the dispute is commercially messy,

reputational pressure exists for both sides,

and prolonged multi-track litigation/arbitration becomes exhausting and expensive.

Either way chaebol you're totally relying on the unfounded opinion that going back to Arb means the arbitration could still not be resolved by an early settlement. The fact is this biased view is only to support what you need to happen to profit rather than the realty that settlement could happen anytime in - between both events.