Member Info for onlooker

I think we all know what the new evidence is and being as it has been posted probably ROI also know. I would think that DQ has not spilled all the beans to shareholders though.

I think they will introduce the new evidence during the annulment phase because I believe it has to do with what happened in the forgery hearing and had a direct effect on the decision and award. If we get through the annulment phase there will not be a lot to talk about and I dont think the new evidence has much to do with forestry laws or illegal logging. Of course if we preesnt new evidence ROI will be given a chance to respond so let us hope they are for once gobsmacked and pushed into a corner with no way out of their shame and eager to settle. I also believe some [or a strong hint of corruption ] of this evidence came to light in the hearing which ICSID skimmed over as if it meant nothing ! If ROI are slow coming forward I really do think ICSID should put pressure on them to end this outrageous fiasco.

I posted a link before from ICSID with annulment regulations and there is a clause that in certain circumstances [ ie if it would have effected the decision or award ] new evidence could be submitted in the annulment phase. . Lets hope the new evidence blows the whole case out of the water ! I believe that it could be possible !

http://www.hlarbitrationlaw.com/2017/06/somewhere-beyond-the-seen-paris-court-of-appeal-sets-aside-an-award-on-the-basis-of-serious-indications-of-money-laundering-after-considering-new-evidence-and-reevaluating-the-record/#page=1 Different case but award set aside following indications of money laundering and talks about other cases siting corruption

http://www.nexexchange.com/member?securityid=17818 This is the nex platform link.It does not have forums

We have seen other David and Goliath cases whereby Goliath has tried constanly to prolong the case in the hope David would run out of funds and Icsid have therefore allowed the stay to give David the chance to fight. Hopefully Icsid will be fair and consistent. If ROI request to have the stay removed is rejected or chl come up with a security this could be the last roll of the dice for ROI.

I also have delisted shares on advfn where I can still read the threads but the threads are no longer here on the lse so just bookmark SCL schlumberger just in case.

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=SCL&share=SCHLUMBERGER I suggest that if they close the board we chat here.This is an old company but until now nobody posts there. If I am not around could somebody update daily please.

DQ had said apparently at the AGM when somebody asked about the possibiliity of an OOC that there had been a suggestion that a ROI friendly company could offer to buy the company for not less than £3 and that it could all be over the next week.That was a the week before the award was announced. A little research was done at the time and the co in question could have been the one named as looking to spend $1b in our area.They were it turned out app 50% owned by ROI but that is all I can remember. At the time it seemed like a face saving solution we had not thought of I would be happy to be protected from a lowball offer or a predator snapping up cheap tranches if nex can give us this protection. I would prefer no more games and at least £3 for all of us sooner rather than later !.

It was explained that they ran out of time.A condition of the license was that they started excavating within a time fame which they did not and the license lapsed.Therefore it was put out to tender where Ridlatama won. Any other info here such as other bidders that can prove they took part would be useful . Some interesting info here and look whose name pops up ! Worth while reading article in full http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/rich-seam-of-conflict-over-coal-discovery-20111003-1l5so Quinlivan's contention that Nusantara failed to renew its licences is backed by an analysis paper by a civil servant in East Kutai's mining department, Djaja Putra, in February 2007, just before Ridlatama was granted the concessions. It declared the area "open to other companies" because Nusantara had not applied to renew its licences a month before they expired, as required by law.

long haul or OOC is the question ???

Yeah we will all forget the ROI abuse and total disregard for for rules and laws .We wont think about ISCID its precedents and twisting of the truth but we as good honourable gents will stick to aim rules ! Personally I dont think it it will come out of suspension in the same way that eel and tman stayed suspended for years.

On the surface of it it seems like the annulment should be an open and shut case. It has been said that they only need 1 point to annul and that should easily be found as soon as they start reading and debating.The only thing that should hold it up is if ROI request a security for the stay of costs.Does anybody else think that if they were going to do that then they would have done done it by now ? Stay of costs was awarded by 19.4.17 Until now Roi have used every trick to prolong the hearing.Could it mean they are waiting until the last minute to prolong the hearing or have they realised their attempts would be futile ?

I thought it was only if ROI contested the $1.3m claim that chl could put in the full figures and claim $2b. Remember when ROI won the award and Noor took credit in a press interview ? He even gloated that the valuation was forged. Well if he wants to contest it ? Lets just hope their are no valuers that can be bought or have other political motives ?

Before the extra forgery hearing I had thought OOC would be app £2 then after putting us through the hearing I thought no less than £3.Now that we have the annulment hearing I dont see any less than £4 if we have OOC and more if we win and go to quantum.

Never forget although we are only a small fish the fear has always been that if we win the floodgates will open and a shoal of small fish will be claiming their rights That is why ROI have fought so hard and relentless against us..

DQ and CC took a long time going through the award and other documents forensicly with a fine tooth comb. They will have also looked at other cases and ICSID rules and statistics in a much more detailed way than we have. They will be well aware that security FOR THE COSTS could be demanded and thus prepared.. After the award CC stuck with us which we saw as positive. They will not have stuck their neck out to fall at the 1st hurdle ! ie if security for the costs is requested. They will have also assured themselves that they will be paid.

Remember the %ages as well.See charts I posted in a link [annnulment procedure] the other day .At 1st glance our chance seems slim when you look. .It seems though that only about 16% get this far. Then of those about 33& get thrown out.4 % lost About 73% then either had an OOC or had a full or part annulment. .Figures off the top of my head but the link is on the thread for all to see and check.

I hold 2 stocks unfortunatly that were suspended for years EEL and TMAN so I know it is possible to stay suspended. I also remember a case that set a prescedent which was also a David and Goliath story. The eventual losing side had to pay app 90% of the award and all costs.ICSID actually stated that they were heavily penalised because they had obviously wasted court time in the hope that the other side would run out of funds. At the beginning of the annulment phase the stay of costs were enforced becaiuse when the ad-hoc team looked they saw that the little man could not pay so it would have been unfair to ask and automatically let the big boys win and the amount was not significant to the eventual losing party. David eventually won as I said app 90% of award.Maybe somebody here can remember the particular case ?

Lol Fasten your seat belts !