Member Info for Pettycash

Numpty ..You live in Bolton? While he's in between funding Oxus and sorting out Bolton Wanderers, get him to sort out the trains from Bolton to Manchester - they're either delayed/late or cancelled every bl**dy day! Bl**dy British transport system...Maybe I'll take 'em to International Arbitration one day for exproriating my will to live

Cheers..sorry didn't get back earlier Numpty - this 70% Calunius thing...I don't think you can take it as set in stone and somehow an absolute. You could argue that EVERY company that goes into international arbitration thinks it has a 50+ , 60, 70, 80, 90% chance of winning, surely? It must do, by definition.? Look at it the other way round: Would you go through 5+ years of international arbitration, with all the attendant costs, time wastage and stress, if you didn't think you were going to win. Of course everyone thinks they have a strong enough case to win - but many lose. Sure, Calunius believed we had a strong enough case - but then White and Case will have thrown up unknowns that Calunius probably had no idea about .. All I'm saying is that court cases are fluid, they morph with time with new evidence/witness statements...70% confidence yesterday may not not mean 70% confidence today (it might now be 40% 55%, 60%, 70% , 80%?...and how are these figures translated into reality? It's not an exact science.. And, with new evidence that ALL cases throw up - are you saying that 70% confidence remains a static unbudgeable constant for 5 years? What if their confidence was now 30%...or 40%...Would they quit?I doubt any company would quit... How many companies have pulled out of International Arbitration even when evidence was going against them? Camkite - yep, I agree that some of those 80% of "defeats" will be claimant victories (but below the 20% payout threshold), and many of the 40% unreported will also be claimant victories IMO ..I agree that some of the failed cases also fail at the jurisdiction stage, and we never seem to get a figure taking that into account. Overall I have seen other stats where more claimants lose than win - but, yes, that includes Jurisdiction failures, which we've passed. The article is pretty much by Tim Hart and there's some self aggrandizing in there (including his name mainly coming up on the list of being the best ! ) However, maybe he is the best!.. The article isn't complete for sure because of what it misses out, and Uncitral cases too (which I assume have a similar win/lose ratio) .

Before I read some of the posts - I want to point out in my last post, that I didn't mean Brigitte Stern was bent, as I've just re-read it ! I mean we know her "bent" as in usual angle, inclination.. Hope that clears that up

apologies - should say "Less than 20% claim counted as loss"

You got a Real Madrid shirt on at the Nou Camp..;o) Brilliant.. :o) not only the wrong end of the stick - but the other end of the tree ! If you look at those figures (thanks jeremiah - and we have had those figures on here before), the entire thing was compiled by Tim Hart and associates and is a bit of a plug for him, so may have a leaning (However they are hard facts) It is very sobering...and for those who continually get carried away with massive figures, here is the proof that ;payouts rarely reach anywhere near 100% - in fact Tim Hart gets payments down to 2% sometimes - that's TWO (and a few Zero payouts too). There is a real chance of losing this - and that includes a pyrrhic victory also (where the costs/ time taken and ultimate award size are not worth the fight).. The figures show that Tim Hart does have a devastating effect - and White and Case are top dogs, and that Stern probably has a hugely malignant effect on Claimants (although she is only referred to by a letter, but I think we know her MO and bent). So, it's as we were IMO - that's why (Camkite et al) although I don't think a massive win is out of bounds, I still believe it's more unlikely than likely on balance.. Two positive points from the document are that there are a fair amount of decent wins in there by companies, and the fact that 40% of case results are undisclosed (which you can probably deduce that these may be generally claimant wins).. So, on those Stats - where a whopping 80% of Claimants lose - that doesn't take into account 40% undisclosed and also the fact that getting less than 30% of original claim is also counted as a loss. So, on pure statistics alone, it does look rather like a 50/50 win/lose (not withstanding the fact that a >20% payout is classed as a defeat.

If you read some of the legal assays by Brigitte Stern, you'll see that one of the things she explains is that expropriation can be divided into legal and illegal. She argued that an expropriation sometimes stands as being illegal, but then can be magically made 'legal' again, by the fair payment of comepensation, as per contract, for the mine's original investment worth. My main wory , apart from if Oxus are going to somehow fail the "unclean hands test" somewhere along the line, is that Stern basically votes to give us back what was taken away - and that is original investment cost.. And I can't remember what that was now...Vlad?

just speed reading 2 days worth... just seen your last post...yeah figures seem about that - if past averages are to go on

We have done this to death - like we've done everything to death really.. Greedyreedy, but what makes your 30% be from $1.2Billion. If it's the lower end, it could be 30% of $500Million and then again, it might not be 30%, probably wont be... It can be anything from almost nothing (even with a supposed "win" to 100% (and in very rare cases, more) There was a link once on here (back in the archives of our millions of posts) that showed a scale from past cases - wins are anything between 10% and 80% in general..with about 20 - 30% being the average amount.

ahhh..."Love thy neighbour"... The fabled 1970s Sitcom from yesteryear, where a black couple and white family each pitted their 'wits' against each other with racist slurs and epithets. It did for race relations what "On the Buses" did for equality. I hear that Onion was the Producer for both series

Oh I see...apologies ...didn't read the previous thread.. Three Hail Marys, Confession and bring along some nails and a hammer. I deserve it.

Amen to that tceng ..and Praise be to the Lord !

...JohnTroy...and I think we'll be a waiting a few years more for the return of Jesus...maybe the same number of years that I'll be wating for th return of my pet cat, dad, Richard III, JFK etc etc. I wouldn't hold my breath - but I'd certainly change persuasion IMMEDIATELY if the young fella came parading down the road on his donkey again, turning my tap water in wine, and rebuilding Sheffield's entire road system with a swipe of his Lordy hand.. ( Thankfully all the believers will be ensconced in strange stone buildings with steeples at the moment, listening to men dressed in silly ritualistic frock and gold,, so wont see this) Ps. Money's on LSE removing this tame post - heathens!

I'm still trying to work out whether you're serious or just taking the p*ss with that post in alight-hearted way. It reminds me of several posts on here and advfn over the years stating "I shall accept no less than $1Billion!" or.."I shall accept no less than $500Mill!"...etc etc.. So if the Arbiters give out a reduced award (as per precedent in the majority of cases), what are you going to do?? Run around Tashkent, Paris, Geneva , Canada with Placard proclaiming "JUSTICE DENIED !I DEMAND MORE!" An interesting statistic in International Arbitration, which I will try to find the link for (We had it on here ages back) is that no company that fought for an award of over $100Million with Uncitral, ever got the full award ! Yukos proved the exception - but remember, banging on about exceptions is like saying you'll win the Lottery because you know someone who won it. If we won, a reduced amount is expected, from about $100Mill to $250Mill (inc interest) IMO. I initially thought a little lower, but 25% of claim seems to be the 'norm' , although I do accept that ours could buck the rend - either way. ...and, remember, there is also a good % chance that we could lose. IMO Mr Shead's ongoing "extreme confidence" or "confidence" is all part and parcel of CEO talk - I think he genuinely believes that, but so, probably , does every CEO who enters International Arbitration, even those that ultimately lose. No-one goes into this 5 year treadmill expecting to lose - but many do.

Hi Nervous - Yes it's promising with RAB, as they've only sold a handful..Trident? maybe Swainer..was looking more at the 13.52 timed ones.. But there's a few each way going through cheers

I do think that RAB are basically selling when this gets to 4p+ I'm not so sure they are concerned with holding for a result or not - just seems that when 4p is hit, there seems to be quite a few 150,000 etc block sells triggered. The RNS about RAB hardly reducing their holding is agnostic to me- I'm not really reading anything into that regarding confidence of a win

In context of the conversation (and I didn't write anything down, so I suppose it's open to interpretation)...it was that something has been passed on by the Panel (through the lawyers) The statement really doesn't add much to what Ruby and Lselee (or Luckyman0 - sorry cant remember who) said really.. But I do think they have been given an indication ala Rurelec regarding a result coming soon.

Anyway, back to important things for us on Planet Greed and Fear .. Of course the Bod could still be playing a canny game with words, but I'm trying to take Mr W at his word at this moment. The problem is without knowing the man, and he being wary of me/us, it's hard to judge how people behave in first conversations where suspiciojns abound, but I'm trusting him Maybe Ruby has built up more of a relationship with them - if, in fact Ruby isn't Mr Shead (I still have my suspicions Ruby...Richard Shead's probably laughing this theory out 'the room! ) Out of interest this is pretty much verbatim what was said about the "very near" future in the conversation I had: I asked whether Mr Shead had used that phrase because a) We are in the median/mean time from an Arbitration Panel meeting to concluding, so basically the statement was based on past case lengths ..or b) They had been told something specific that it was going to be in the very near future.. and he said "The latter"...which I confirmed as being being b) He also used to word "imminent".. anyhow, can't really add any more really..maybe we'll still be here at Christmas Good luck all

aplologies but Just been watching some incredible images of the Paris attacks on the news.. The BBC have been showing CCTV footage of one of the bar attacks... Shows the luckiest woman alive, outside on the pavement lying on the floor defenceless, when one of the scum stands over her , points gun at her and pulls the trigger - but it jams and he walks off.. Lucky lady.. These scumbags make me so sick

Hmmm...thanks Schofield... I dunno mate.. you know what I'm like. I always make a mountain out of a molehill, so might be prone to exaggerating stories there ;o)

..I'm not taking any credit at all Schofield...Just joking about the words in your last post. Share is doing what it likes between 3.7p and 4.1p...sellers always in the wings.