Member Info for Paul0410

I was thinking over the weekend that this would settle back at about 5/6p - roughly where it was before the potential March settlement was announced. The money that was chasing that has presumably now gone. If it falls below 5p I’ll buy more on the basis that there will be another bounce and I can average down having bought in at 9p.

Well at least Ascent should make the LSE end of day market report - biggest fallers. Fame at last. Sorry for the gallows humour. Maybe the company needs to rebrand as Phoenix - if there are any ashes left!

They clearly have confidence in the successful outcome of the claim then.

Well I suppose that the glaring flaw in that scenario is that whoever or whatever the entity is that took control of Ascent could ultimately still screw their own govt over by pursuing the legal action regardless!

Looking at the wording of that statement and the RNS, was there possibly an offer but one which didn’t include any settlement for damages?

I like the bit where he says Fridays news shouldn’t change the views on the company of anyone else ie long-term holders. I wonder if he’s aware of the views of the company as expressed by LTHs on here ??!!!

O2b - if it’s all such a simple fait a complet for the Slov govt as you’re suggesting, wouldn’t the Board have been fully aware of such an outcome and such a weak hand and therefore the futility of entering into negotiations in the first place?

I agree with that sentiment. But the caveat that the board need to publish a clear timetable of when legal action is to be commenced. If there is no further news the sp is bound to drift downwards (that’s hoping that it hasn’t already crashed on Monday!). I’m assuming that further Counsel’s opinion may be needed on the Slov response but that shouldn’t take long so set some lines in the sand on the process. Otherwise you’ll be left to believe the views expressed by some that the whole thing is a fake and that the board are a sham.

When I pointed that out previously it was suggested that it was simply a punt. Someone must have very deep pockets to make a punt like that.

It’s worth remembering too that the RSN of 22nd February did clearly state that there was no guarantee of an amicable settlement being achieved by 19th March. This wasn’t an unexpected outcome and the 19th March wasn’t an all or nothing deadline. What you would now expect however is a further announcement plotting a timetable for further action in order to allay sh concerns. That is the acid test now for me (in the absence of a compromise deal of course).

Kashdog- you clearly have an infinitely better knowledge of the BOD past and present than I do. Is it your view then that the current claim is spurious and has no basis in law?

Kashdog - I took a punt is the honest answer. I have a friend who does business in Croatia and he suggested it as a good bet. I took a gamble on a quick settlement. Probably like a number of others. I’m not looking at selling though as I don’t believe the claim is dead in the water. Sometimes you just have to follow your instincts. There are multiple examples of companies on AIM where previous boards have been decried and a company written off and suddenly things turned around. Look at Futura on Friday. They’re going to make a fortune on what essentially was originally a placebo!! The deciding factor for me will be how quickly there is either further movement in terms of a counter offer or commencement of arbitration proceedings. If neither occur fairly soon then all credibility is lost.

Kashdog - I’d go back to my point that, if you look at this purely through the prism of the current claim, what happens in 2022 is surely irrelevant. Clearly in a wider context it’s different but not in relation to the current proceedings.

Ping - I guess a lot of money came in on this share in the expectation of a favourable settlement. Hence the fear for the SP. My own view is that the merits of the claim and the means to pursue it are all that matters in the short term. To hold the view expressed by Happyzone I’m assuming that he must believe the claim to have little/no merit, spurious or at best speculative. I would assume that Ascent’s legal opinion says otherwise. It then comes down to brinkmanship. It’s logical to assume that the Slov govt will drag things out in the expectation of weakening the share price and thereby forcing Ascent into some form of compromise. If the case is a good one then regardless of the political makeup of Slovenia, it will be bound by international law absolutely treaties. It isn’t some rogue/pariah state. The strength of the case and the means to pursue it are surely all that matters now regardless of the history of the company and the rest the baggage on here

Happyzone - no disagreement with your prediction. However, as for the rest of your post are you suggesting that the claim is vexatious and has no basis in law, or, that Ascent will not have the means to pursue it regardless of its merit? Those two questions are the crux of the matter.

I agree with that sentiment Ping. What we don’t know is whether the govt offered any alternative terms at all or simply gave a flat refusal to the terms proposed by Ascent. I would think that having asked for an extension then a flat refusal without offering any alternative proposal for settlement would be unlikely? The legal resources available to a national govt would surely not need any extension simply in order to establish no liability when the facts of the claim have been made available to them for some considerable time. And if it was a flat refusal and therefore purely a delaying tactic that would not be looked upon very favourably should it reach an arbitration court. I reckon it’s brinkmanship at play. Crash the share price by declining to settle and by doing so put the pressure on Ascent to accept reduced terms. The point made by someone earlier about this being a national govt up against a small company and therefore a no-hoper is surely irrelevant. The basis of this is adherence to international law and treaties and will ultimately settle on the facts of the matter not the clout of either party.

Well I guess the adage is to learn from experience which I’m hoping I am. Regardless of my naivety, I still suggest that Align won’t be willing to cast their investment to the dustbin just yet and will be wishing the legal process to be seen through to its conclusion as will the rest of us. You don’t have to be an experienced investor to understand brinkmanship in negotiating deals.

Are you seriously thinking that the likes of Align and HL would sit on the sidelines and let themselves get screwed by the Slov govt like that? I’m assuming that they have a greater insight into the possible legal ramifications (and the resources to provide it) than any of us on here and aren’t simply seeing a refusal at this first hurdle as being the final outcome. I’m sure that they will have anticipated a price fall as much of the PI money that came in on the back of a quick settlement will now go out again.

Kashdog - as a recent investor here, I’d be interested to know what originally attracted you to Ascent to have made such a sizeable investment? And my apology in advance if that is too intrusive. I’m honestly struggling to make my mind on the future here. Are there are any legs left in the compensation route, or indeed the will/staying power from the board to pursue it. And if that avenue is closed it’s a massive blow to any future growth. I take some comfort though from what appears to be a good legal case in favour of Ascent and a majority shareholder who I assume will wish to see it through. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I accept too that those here as longterm holders are very scathing of the board.

If they do have a longer term strategy in mind (in the terms of what’s been described) then they must have factored in the price drop on Monday too.