If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
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.
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.
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.