We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Before I sign off for the night, can I clarify that I never said BP would be a poor ally, merely that we may have slightly different goals. It’s not black and white. We will continue to talk to all parties who could help us reach our goals.
Apologies, I’ll refrain from saying anything on an open forum such as this in future, it’s impossible to do so without questions being asked or assumptions being made that we’d be foolish to answer publically. It is not black and white, and it is certainly not as simple a situation as some seem to have convinced themselves.
We are working relentlessly to navigate a very complex situation, we will continue to do so. Be careful where the narrative is led.
Folks, BP could indeed be a great friend to have, but let’s bear in mind that our goals and our targets could prove quite different. They are seeking repayment of monies advanced and secured against assets being transferred to new ownership. That is quite different to our situation as defrauded shareholders. They would primarily target Summit and the SISP process. Whilst the SISP process has done us no favours, our issues started way, way prior to Summit and the SISP taking central stage. Good to befriend, but BP might not be ideal partners with regards litigation. It’s a complex situation that has to be navigated very carefully.
The judge questioned BP advocate as to why their objection was extremely late. That suggests they either missed something glaring (unlikely), or something changed at the last minute. No, we do not know what.
CAG were on the call. Subject to a couple of clarifications, the AVO was granted with a conclusion date of 17th June.
The BP situation was very strange, leaving their objection until the last minute, as though surprised.
Mr Cotter is aware of an emailing issue affecting specific email account providers (I haven’t had an email myself!). Yahoo, AOL etc known to be an issue, but a remedy is close. Please bear with them, it was out of their control.
Reposting a note I added on 23rd March in which I highlight that there were always going to be additional KC costs to be covered, some appear to be fixating on those. The zoom calls will answer all your questions - having waited so long for justice, I’d suggest waiting another week before committing would be wise. The first phase is the stage at which the vast majority of these unavoidable costs are encountered.
23rd March:
‘Setfords have agreed to proceed on a no win, no fee basis. As with all class actions, there will be a cost for external KC counsel, but these costs are yet to be determined. Given the numbers of shareholders looking to get involved (we have been contacted by 500+ prior to closing applications as interest had more than been established), we do not envisage these costs to be in any way prohibitive, perhaps done on a banded basis. Mr Cotter is working on this a present and will fully explain the process to all when he invites applications to join said class action.
Every action that CAG has taken to date, every hour invested by its team has been without any cost to shareholders. All legal counsel taken thus far and being taken now, has been without cost to shareholders. Should there be the need to cover costs beyond Setford’s no win, no fee class action representation, then we will address that in an open and inclusive manner. We have not, are not and will not hide anything from shareholders when all the facts are to hand.’
Apologies folks, but I obviously don’t have access to their email account to check anything.
Can I ask that anyone who has not yet received an email to send
NO EMAIL RECEIVED
to coplaction@ceclegal.co.uk
Folks, as mentioned previously, there are additional and external costs involved that have to be covered, potentially KC counsel in 3 jurisdictions etc. These costs obviously do not fall within no win, no fee. The whole process will be fully explained, in detail, during the zoom calls that Mr Cotter hosts.
As stated in our previous message, our legal action is being brought forward and you should all receive notification when certain things have been actioned.
As per Stas’s note, our actions are being watched and there is zero benefit at this stage to over communicate. Frustrating? Yes, but for us too, please understand that. However, this must be done properly, it simply cannot be rushed.