Member Info for RBMInvest

Ryan/Monty, please both email me at coplsharewatch@gmail.com and I’ll personally answer your questions.

CAG has worked tirelessly for COPL SHs, please don’t question our honesty or integrity, that’s wholly undeserved.

Jack, we will request a summary communication. I’m not aware that an acknowledgment is required, you simply pick your call and follow the joining instructions.

EMC, some have already sent questions already, for those very reasons, Stas20 sent in quite along list for example. If you have anything specific, send it to MC in advance.

MF

I’m not aware of other issues. Please email what you’ve sent to MC to coplsharewatch@gmail.com and I’ll take it up with him directly.

Folks, there are three zoom calls available this week, at three at different times in order to offer flexibility. Clearly, this guy WANTS to answer your questions, not hide from them. He probably knows what 90%+ of your questions will be, he’s an expert in his field.

It’s pretty clear that none of us on this board are experts in such legal cases, in fact it’s pretty clear that some haven’t a clue. Therefore, if you want all your questions answered factually, simply join one of the calls. If it’s not for you, that’s fine, your decision.

However, ‘debating’ such points when there is clearly no expert present to deliver any facts is pointless. With the first call due to take place in just 48hrs time, all that’s being displayed here is impatience or disruptive mischief.

Both a sad waste of a lovely Sunday.

Apologies, just found it in spam folder.

Denarius

Afraid we have not received that, could you please resend to coplsharewatch@gmail.com

Thanks

Ryan, after posting here for just 48hours, please stop repeatedly telling CAG what we should be doing and what our priorities should be. Thanks.

Crowd funding is a possibility, although all should be a lot clearer once the zoom calls take place. hNW individuals, unless embroiled in it would be a harder sell, but as momentum and PR kicks in, a possibility.

Saint 👍

It’s knowledge passed on during the SISP process. Nothing in the AVO process exempts any party should actual fraud, gross misconduct or wilful negligence be proven in a court of law. Advice taken.

Maid

Bod does NOT have ‘immunity from any legal actin, signed off by the judge.’ That clause states this to safeguard the AVO, but is followed by, or similar, unless actual fraud, gross misconduct or wilful negligence can be proven in a court of law. Full house, I’d argue.

Wadda

You may well be 2nd guessing what has already been done, but we’re not going to broadcast everything we are doing, and with whom, over a public forum. That would not be wise.

Wadda

At what point did I say we had not contacted them? That’s the very point - he’ll be sitting there getting confused as to who is who.

Wadda, a good initiative, but which shareholder group did you say you were representing? I wouldn’t want Mr Denton to get confused due to multiple approaches.

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.

SN, no opportunity available to do so.