Member Info for Ovets

Maybe recent shareholder activity, mainly by Glenrothes, has prompted today's RNS update?
Sam & Co. could have done a lot more of that in the past, when they showed a shocking disdain for their shareholders.

FInvestor, if you are going to comment, make sure you understand what you're commenting about first.

It would almost certainly have to be a case that hasn't been publicised yet, involving the Italian State and how many of those are there?

I suspect Harbour have "ploughed a lot of money" into this one because they expected to win and could then use it as a reference case study for others to follow.

In matters such as this, you hardly allude to something as a case study if you're not pretty sure you're not going to make a fool of yourself.

Daikihaku: "That the Award which has been roughly halved already by arbitrators" - how on earth do you know that?

If you really know that as fact, then you must know that there is an award and how much it is.

Buzzard, you say: "You are just doing more harm than good at this late stage".

Please tell us what more harm can be done than hasn't already been done by this greedy, incompetent BoD.
Easy for you to make such statements, but I'm asking you to explain.

If you haven't done so, please reply to Glenrothes email below, as he's doing a terrific job from which we could all benefit greatly.

Yes I know, he's not a philanthropist, but he could do with our support and he isn't really asking us to do very much.

No it's not a red herring, in as much as there could be a change of Government (which happens quite often in Italy), when the commitments made by a previous administration are thrown away by the next.
The Italians may have tried and make something of this, but if RKH did a professional job, then DD won't have been an issue.

Not long before we find out.

I do wish people would stick to the issues and not make irrelevant things up.

I'm not saying that in this case there is necessarily any due diligence (DD) argument against RKH, I was merely trying to explain the process, which has nothing to do with criminals bashing people over the head with baseball bats as CTS was suggesting.

The Italians will probably have tried to make out that RKH didn't do a thorough DD job. Maybe they told the tribunal that they made everything known to RKH, who didn't pay attention, or take enough notice. They may have tried to convince the tribunal that, just like a child who must have a new toy, RKH went ahead with the contract despite all their (the Italians) warnings. Even if they have succeeded, the maximum reduction in award would be 50% and not the "completely release the Italian Government from its duty to abide by the treaty" as stated by Phil64.

At the other end of the spectrum, RHK may have done a brilliant DD job, asking all the right questions and the Italians (just like Arfur Daley) might have lied through their teeth, telling RKH what a brilliant deal it was, with no worries - we just don't know, but hopefully the tribunal will have got to the bottom of it all.

Just to repeat myself, there IS a DD component to the process, which can result in up to 50% reduction in award.
None of this has anything to do with the criminal law, baseball bats, bashing people over the head, or anything else like that.

I think CTS's analogy is wrong and misleading.
This isn't a criminal case, where RKH has been hit by an Italian with a baseball bat. This is an arbitration tribunal, where RKH may have entered into a contract without investigating the circumstances enough.

A closer analogy is CTS buying a house and not checking the deeds, or that all the houses in the area are built over ancient mine workings, so are subject to subsidence. The house is next to a river, which floods every month and has done so for as long as anyone can remember.
After a year or two of enduring this, CTS goes back to the seller and asks for a refund.

That's what not carrying out adequate due diligence is about, NOT about being hit over the head by an Italian with with a baseball bat, which would be heard in the criminal Court.

No, let's not leave this one there.
The ECT rules apply here and failure to carry out adequate due diligence IS an issue, but RKH may have done a good job.

My recollection is that initially no one had any idea of the size of the claim and some speculated it might be as much as £1Billion (or maybe $1Billion), which of course was unlikely.

More recently someone let the cat out of the bag and we learnt it was $275 Million (or thereabouts), which is about £200 Million at today's exchange rate, so still quite a lot.

Of course, that's only the claim. Claimants have to have a very good case indeed (and very good lawyers to tell the story convincingly) if they're to be awarded the full amount.
Regarding the "contributory negligence" some have mentioned here, the issue is whether the claimant carried out adequate due diligence, before entering into the contract with the Italian State, to convince the tribunal not to reduce any award.
If RKH didn't carry out adequate due diligence, then any award can be reduced by up to 50% (worst case).
We have no idea about this, but we'll soon find out. If RKH management carried out their due diligence on OM, in the way Sam & Co. have done everything else, then expect there to be a reduction. let's hope I'm wrong.

Just to add, Baldmark, this is precisely the reason why RKH followed the route they have, rather than pursue their claim in the Italian Courts.
As well as being notoriously partisan and slow, one thing they could be relied to do is not pay up, take endless evasive action and then, after a change of Government, say it's nothing to do with them and simply ignore the judgement.

Baldmark, the Italian state doesn't have the option to ignore an ECT award.
If they don't pay, assets can be seized and in this case, enforcement jurisdiction is in the USA, so plenty of Italian state assets there.
If you are going to post, please don't distract with incorrect, imaginary invention. Thanks

The claim is in $US and NOT £Sterling, so you have to divide it by about 1.3 as well as deducting lawyers' fees and consider how long it'll take to extract from the Italian state, assuming a decent sum is awarded.

Or just that we were told the award would be announced in late July and and there are only 5 trading days left.
OK, so timings haven't been exactly precise, but it can't be too long now and if you've got an article to publish about it, now would seem a good time.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to eat humble pie and offer a big apology, as I didn't read Yeast's posts properly.

A few things going wrong, so I wasn't paying attention, read them in a hurry, so I'm guilty as charged and will now hide in a corner and hope everyone will have forgotten by the time I come out!

OOPS!

And you too yeastybabes and clear-up your mess before you go

It's the likes of Bigred who should be chased away and take their rubbish with them

BTW Auson, Boris didn't say: " ....................no more financing for fossil fuel...overseas" the other night - it was much more vague than that.
When I have a moment, I'll dig out his precise words, but they were clearly intended to be ambiguous, IF you were paying attention.

If you are going to quote, please make sure you get the quote right. Thanks