The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
This may well be part of the counterclaim Simms
“We note from EQTEC’s announcement that the total amount claimed is circa £4m. This is surprising to us given that all pre-action correspondence to date has been limited in value to claims amounting to circa £2.9m. It therefore appears that EQTEC have acted prematurely in issuing Court proceedings against Logik in circumstances where they have not provided any details about the balance of their alleged claim (totaling £1.1m) as they are specifically required to do as part of any legal process before Court proceedings are issued.”
The statement added: “We refute EQTEC’s allegations entirely and in the event that any claim is served on Logik, this will be defended to the fullest extent.
“We also note that EQTEC claim that they have made numerous attempts to engage with us towards a resolution of these matters more recently through legal counsel. EQTEC also claim that we have rejected invitations to work through the issues constructively or failed to follow through on an agreement to meet with them.
“This is, quite simply, incorrect and as part of the recent correspondence passing between our respective solicitors, it was actually us who offered to meet with EQTEC’s representatives to try and engage in commercial discussions with them in an attempt to resolve matters; however no response at all has been received from EQTEC or their solicitors to this offer of a meeting and that was where matters stood prior to EQTEC’s recent announcement that it has issued a claim against Logik.
It then goes onto .
“In the event that EQTEC consider that they have a claim against Logik for any alleged breach of the SPA or the Deeside Project, then that is a matter for them and this will present them with a damages claim; however, as explained, we refute EQTEC’s allegations entirely and consider that there is no legal basis to their claims. We will have no hesitation in defending our position through the Courts if that is what is ultimately required.”
Goes to https://standardgas.com/
Looks like our boat is going to be a follower and not leader.
Try thinking that the Market Makers need to make more money to pay for christmas bills.
I did ask the same question on the first day of trading after a christmas long ago when the shares went from around 4p to 10p and I top sliced the profits from an original investment of £1800 from its new value of £40K.
I put it down to a MM nursing a hangover to pressing the wrong button on their keyboard.
Oh those were the days.
Except PT,
Puting the company into Administration breaches the contract and leaves the depoisiter as a creditor against the company.
It's why I was questioning as to the patents application which could give the partially finished item more value. Bare in mind that the pipes, girder support and other metal works may well be owned by other creditors. Including the employees for their work in assembly.
Employees are in fact Preferential creditors.
This is just a guess PT and Bert.
But a certain director of M Dryers and Getgo now known as Onunda is a creditor with approx £1.75m owing and I would assume is trying to get the patent application overturned in his or their favour to add weight to their claim.
Also is there going to be any research costs from the university that has been developing the flow rate calculations to be thrown into the mix.
I would have thought that the part completed TCC that has patent application approval is worth far more than the sum total of its scrap metal value.
All just a thought on my part.
Chid,
The only thing wrong with your point is that the government dosent have any of its own money. Its all taxpayers money. So its only our skin in the game from both ends of the scale.
Bare in mind that the court case dosent finish untill Sept this year and nothing is writtern until the fat lady sings.
Hi Simms45
This is the information extracted from the Chapter 11 petiton as to EQTECs claim.
As at 12th October 2022.Nonpriority creditor's name and mailing address
As of the petition filing date, the claim is:
Check all that apply. $2,770,467.98
EQTEC PLC
Building 1000
City Gate
Mahon T12 W7CV
Cork, Rep. of Ireland
Basis for the claim: Equity holder Loan
Plus
Security Class and Number of Securities & Kind of Interest
EQTEC PLC
Class A 3767 securities held LLC Managing Member
So not sure if any further adjustments have been made since.
The following gives me more of a lift regarding the progress to mutiple plants in the US using EQTEC systems. Having been to the US parks on a number of occasions watching the forest being managed to avoid fires has always been a costly process. If having multiple plants produciing saleable products to offset those costs must put EQTEC systems as a first port of call.
Catastrophic wildfires in California have made clear the urgency of forest management efforts that reduce risk and improve forest health. NFCP is a forest-based biomass gasification plant that will utilize sustainable local forest biomass as well as fire threat reduction activities from the Sierra and Yosemite National Forest areas which will benefit local communities.
I was wondering if when the Plot 8 incinerator is ready to start working. Biffa may be persuaded to run the plastic waste facility to recycle plastics rather than just burning it. After all it has lots in common. Steady supply of all types of waste collection. Heavy haulage trucks that could be run on Hydrogen in the future. Now doubt Biffa would have many waste collection contracts already in the bag.
With regard to planning. I don't see a problem getting an extension. Considering its a recycling project and already been passed with that in mind. Especially as it forms an integral part of the planned Protos site.
BNinno
"They don’t have the decency as a company to even respond to repeated communications via email from a PI - and I’ve held for years."
I get the same from even FTSE 100 companies I invest in. I believe Iis to do with insider information rules.
I found it best to ask your question and for the answer to come out via the website or an RNS.
I do have one question for Foxy. You keep referring to a missing 50 million. Where do you get that from. Thanks in anticipation of a reply.
Hi CS123
The halifax has a strange way of working out the cost of your purchase before the change and after. They for some unknown reason said my consolidated shares were purchased at 12.951p. Whist the original cost basis remain the same it showed a current value pre change from £1200 down to £12. I believe that they just divided consolidated shares into original book cost. So in my case my shares have to reach now a price of over 13p to break even.
Yet Hargreaves Lansdown got the calculation correct by costing my consolidated shares at 3p
I hope I made sense.
"There really is no bottom being set here for the z-list offload, they couldn’t even wait for the consolidation, " Not sure how that stacks up with your comment C909
# of Trades 37
Vol Sold 3,579,920
Vol Bought 78,908,993