Member Info for Orbiter

Jamesss I imagine ROI could justifiably object to that scenario. I was wondering if the annulment is succesful do we have to go to the back of the queue and wait our turn for a new tribunal or are we fast tracked? All this time we are wasting instead of spending money.

kevwed ou will not be able to transfer it from an ordinary account back into an ISA account unless you use your 2016/17 tax year ISA allowance. I contacted Iweb on Friday and told them I am transferring mine to another companies NEX retaining its ISA status, they said they would keep it in my ISA account untill the transfer takes place, they said they have made a note of this on my account. After seeing your sharechat here I checked my iWeb account only to find iWeb have put my CHL into an ordinary share account. I am livid and will be on the phone to them Monday. I would suggest that maybe you contact them and say they havent given you a chance to transfer to a NEX platform as an ISA. I am not aware of any other companies who have stripped us of ISA status.

Maestro, iWEb are a large company, part of the Halifax group, I just hope their interpretation of of HMCR rules regarding ISA's status are wrong otherwise we could all be panicking in the future if we suddenly get a major pay out and have a lot of tax deducted. At least we would be panicking for the right reasons.

Maestro, I am already in the process of transfering out to thesharecentre who will keep it in an ISA a/c on the NEX market,

Kevwed, and anyone else this may apply to, iWeb will not keep CHL shares in an ISA a/c insisting the shares are ineligible for ISA status under HM rules. I have argued to no avail with iWeb that ISA status surely applies whether trading on AIM or NEX. You can keep your shares in a standard account but if there were suddenly an ooc settlement announced you may not get time to transfer shares back into an ISA, if you still have headroom for this tax year, and therefore suffer a chunk of CGT from profits. Having said that if we are lucky enough to get a settlement we dont know what type and how it would be taxed?

Kevwed, I have just emailed NEX for clarification?

Just had a letter from IWEB(Halifax Share Dealing), In a nutshell it says,- Following a review of the above stock, as the shares were delisted on 8th June 2016 , under HM Revenue and Custom rules, the stock no longer meets eligibility for ISA status as they do not have full listing on another recognised Investment Exchange.They have to be be moved to our standard share dealing account which we will proceed to do. O.K this is not a problem at the moment however if an ooc settlement were suddenly announced and the shares were re-listed, the shares could suddenly be worth a lot and I may not have had a chance to put them into a new ISA, certainly not without exceeding the ISA limit. I had been told yesterday that www.share.com are happy to accept transfer of these shares and keep them within the ISA a/c, It seems that there is a bit of confusion somewhere, I will look into this tommorow when I get time.

Further to my original post re my CHL ISA shares currently with iWeb. You may be aware that iWeb do not support the NEX market and they contacted me recommending that I transfer the suspended shares to a NEX broker a/c. I have yet to find an alternative broker willing to accept these, I will look a little further but failing this I presume I can leave them dormant within iWeb untill they are relisted. Has anyone been succesful in finding a NEX broker ready to accept a transfer of these shares?

Many brokers make an annual or quarterly charge to hold your shares which is calculated as a percentage of the size of the fund you are transferring. Our fund's were easy to value before suspension but how is it valued now, do we assume it will be at the pre suspension price i.e 37p per share ?

Roger, I think 'The Share Centre' is a NEX registered broker, will they not transfer your CHL shares to their NEX system as its an internal transfer?

One John, Thanks for your input. I looked at www.share.com and their ISA charge is £ 4.80 inc vat p.m, and as this share is delisted and inactive is a bit high for my needs. I think I will have to look for a broker with no 'inactivity' charges but only charges for transactions. It seems rather ironic that here I am concerned with annual charges yet willing to take massive risk investing in companies like Churchill!

One John, Thanks for your input. I looked at www.share.com and their ISA charge is £ 4.80 inc vat p.m, and as this share is delisted and inactive is a bit high for my needs. I think I will have to look for a broker with no 'inactivity' charges but only charges for transactions. It seems rather ironic that here I am concerned with annual charges yet willing to take massive risk investing in companies like Churchill!

As we can now only deal CHL shares, when suspension is lifted, through a NEX registered dealer/trading platform, I need to move my CHL ISA to a suitable company. I currently use IWeb run by Halifax and I only wish to move the CHL shares. I welcome any recommendations for a suitable dealer and that would be one that does not charge for advice that I do not want and also has minimal other charges. Any recommendations?

maestro1, I have not done the same ultra research that you have since we lost the tribunal, so have the ROI actually admitted that the Kpk are looking into Noors conduct and do we know any of the facts?

Why should ROI submit to pressure for an OOC settlement unless the pressure comes from within the ROI, it has no reason to submit to ICSID pressure to save ICSID from the embarrasement of otd tribunal flaws?

Charlotte10, but in a fresh tribunal the forgery aspect could be raised again?

Answering my own question from earlier, If the arbiters think that just one or two points of the annulment are sufficient to grant full annulment for Churchill will they have to judge on all the remaining points? It could be that ROI do not want an OOC settlement and the whole tribunal process will have to start again, if this is the case it would perhaps be better that all the annulment points are answered in order to block as many of ROI's paths as possible in a further tribunal?

I wonder if the arbiters find, for example, two of the many annulment points are enough to grant a full annulment, will they then have to continue to arbitrate on the remaining points? As far as ICSID is concerned, the more points that are ruled as bad decisions the worse it is for ICSIDs reputation and it would serve no real purpose for anyone.

I hope the French and German Judge wont be punishing us for Brexit.

Onlooker, My overall impression of the annulment article we have been looking at is that the percentage success rate of annulment is way above the figure which someone else picked out at 3%. Some of the cases categorised were not yet completed so did not yet count as success or failure, a fairly large part of the annulment applications were discontinued before completion for reasons not mentioned but in other articles some of these cases were settled between the parties i.e OOC. I would guess that there is more like a 25% success rate once the initial stage is passed i.e the formation of ad hoc commitee so, yes, with a good case like ours there is plenty to be upbeat about. Just a matter of waiting now, 20 months on average from ad hoc to finality, maybe sooner if ROI cave in?