Member Info for Orbiter

But will all this, if indeed it turns out to be true, be sufficient to relieve Churchill of their responsibilities of 'due diligence' in respect of ascertaining authenticity of signatures,, unless of course it can be shown that Churchill were duped by employees or agents of the ROI or its regencies.

I think a lot of posters here believe that the arbitration is a court of law. It is basically a club which if you join you agree to abide by the rules or face a panel that decides the merits and possibly award compensation. Yes there are rights of appeal etc and even if ICSID are discredited through wholesale misjugement or even corruption it is not exactly 'Watergate' and no one apart from the combatants and victims are really interersted. I think it would take shedloads of money for CHL to fight against ROI and ICSID. I hope I am proved entirely wrong and I will be the first to celebrate Maestros enduring optimism.

They are incompetent beacause of the poor rates of pay, probably like directors?

Meg Kinnear has been in the post since 2008 and her term was extended for a further 6 years in 2014, you would think this gave her plenty of time to sort out ICSID prior to our failed arbitration and she must be fully aware of our circumstances.From reading an article about her I didnt get the impression that she was aware of shortcomings in the ICSID arbiration system so I guess she dosent want to rock the boat? http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/an-interview-with-meg-kinnear-secretary-general-of-icsid-part-14-from-montreal-to-washington/

Read the following link! Confirms our fears that ICSID is a self serving organisation that lacks openess and is more concerned with protecting itself than protecting justice? http://www.derainsgharavi.com/2014/11/icsid-annulment-committees-the-elephant-in-the-room/

ref darrenbiggs Do companies forensically analyse signatures using an expert before proceeding? I dont know but one would perhaps expect that there might have been be an exchange of letters of intent or maybes minutes of a conversation acknowledged by both buyer and seller, offers and acceptance etc etc before the final documents were signed. Signatures for very important documents, at least in this country, are usually signed, and witnessed by an identifiable witness. If CHL has lost the case because they were hoodwinked by forgers and did not have more than a signature as proof of purchase perhaps they really were incompetent. ROI is a known corruption ridden state, and forged documents registered as genuine by a lowly clerk is almost more 'par for the course' than the seeming ineptitude of well paid directors and maybe lawyers of the multi million pound company from which we bought shares. Will Churchill be claiming that they were not inept I wonder?

rebel, Well yes, the ROI did take the money and the tribunal said in effect that Churchill were mugs for giving the money away without due diligence. We 'personal investors' trusted that a company like Churchill would have checked and double checked everything knowing that they were investing in a fledgling democracy known for corruption and inadequate business practice. We were scammed and Churchill failed us? I agree that the tribunal should have attached some blame to the ROI though and hope we may get some money back but ICSID dont seem to have much of a system for re-running arbitrations, probably because they are worried about discrediting themselves.

I have always been one for trying not to let my enthusiasm taint my judgement, It obviously failed with CHL so I feel justified in not thinking that our moral case will prevail over the tribunal rules of appeal etc. I suppose you could say 'grumpy old man' but maybe I am better prepared for what is likely to be a failed appeal. Of course I hope we will win against all the odds, but if I knew you personally I might maybe try to temper your optimism somewhat. Having said all that I would love to see your winning spirit prevail.

Maestro, by saying Churchill were complicit, I do not mean in the criminal sense,I mean that Churchill contributed to their own downfall by not being fastidious enough or conducting due diligence. A comparison is that if you buy a house and the title rights were forged you do not have the legal right to keep or profit from the house but on the other hand the police and courts would not find you guilty of an offence.

But if the forged documents were presented by CHL for registration CHL then CHL become complicit to some extent in the forgery even if they say they were not aware of forgery. CHL havethea responsibility for due diligence and failed! It might be a fair guess that when CHL's previous legal team jumped ship it might be because of the discovery that CHL's case was based on a fraud and this also clarifies why ROI asked for a seperate hearing on the forged documents, which of course was resisted by Churchill.

Will drift back down a bit more as people realise that there really isnt going to be a second offer. In fact it could drift below pre offer price as some will be disappointed that Unilever is not open to takeovers unless the offer is really exceptional and some shareholders may abandon any hope.

If we were in a situation where we could get our money back, or alternatively stay invested because the tribunal accepted grounds for appea, which way would You go. I know this would all depend on what we may learn between now and if this unlikely situation occurs but I a just interested to see who wold be in and who would be out?

Well, I think maybe the tribunal acknowledges some mistakes by ROI but passed them off as CHL's fault for not conducting due diligence?

There are clear and concise, but limited, criteria for appealing the verdict. The first job of the legal team is to identify the means to get the case appealed and this in itself is not easy. If the tribunal have covered themselves against the right of us to appeal everything else is irrelevant no matter what the merits. I am left wondering what the 'points of law' were that the tribunal asked the opposing parties to comment on and what ROI asked the tribunal to keep confidential during the hearings and how much these things influenced the outcome? At this stage I dont understand why ROI might consider compensating CHL as suggested by some, why would they. they are winners.

Strange word to use when we were hoping for something significant about grounds for appeal. What 'advice' to shareholders can there possibly be be except advice on the merits of the different methods of suicide? Par for the course from CHL

It would be an encouraging sign to see one or more directors 'top-up'.

Well said. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people wonder why a share price is dropping?

Hi Mepobre, I think I remember your 'signature' from the past, yes I sold around 7p. Well, I havent re couped losses yet but I think I am developing gambler traits! Instead of keeping to boring blue chip investments I have for some years been invested in Churchill Mining, however this is an all or nothing 'bet' on the outcome of an international tribunal, it will be fantastic upside or total loss but it is an amount I can afford to loose. Having said that, AIM shares are not ones I would recommend to anyone as the success rate is much poorer than most people realise. I think those with insider information are the only ones that can rely on beating the market. No matter how much DYOR we look at we never know the full picture, or we know it too late, dont you think? GL L

I was in this until just before Emed changed it's name. I sold out because I thought this share was following the pattern of other super-hyped shares that never reached expectations because of missed time frames, share dilution, political and economic circumstances,etc etc. I sometimes have another look at this b/board and am surprised that the posters on here seem to have all but deserted, I am happy to have got out with only a 30% loss but rather sad that AIM has failed to deliver on yet another of its 'darlings'. What is the mood of those remaining?

Funny that RR share prices have risen today when people are more worried about Brexit than eve and RR say Brexit would be bad for RR.