Member Info for RBMInvest

BB, it’s in the court documents and has already been posted:

‘The Monitor understands that, on July 1, 2024, the Stalking Horse Purchaser and BP entered into a settlement pursuant to which BP would withdraw its objection to the Chapter 15 AVO Recognition Order, subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement.’

Answers from MC:

1. What is MC’s percentage on a win % fee? It will be between 10-20% dependent on target and take up post stage 1 (which is the advisory stage).

2. What is his percentage win rate in such cases? I have a very strong track record on matters where I take on no win no fee claims, it would be a poor business model if I took on no win no fee work and did not regularly recover, I can only think of a couple of projects where no recovery was made at all.

3. What is the definitive cut off date - a couple of people on holiday? No real definitive cut off but within next two weeks ideally

4. Can they use Docusign, or similar? Yes, but do not need too will accept e sign or even a simple email and photo attachment.

5. What formats are acceptable for signed document return and what pages need to be returned? See above.

6. Have the bandings quoted in the 3rd May email changed in any way? No.

7. Are there likely to be further fees down the line to see the class action through to its conclusion? Not anticipated but if so, will not be incurred unlesss agreement in advance from client. You will never be charged unexpectedly.

8. Can people join at a later stage, what would financial consequences be? Probably not - as we will be too far down the line, of course anyone wishing to join later will likely be required to pay a much higher fee as I’m not able to use economies of scale etc

I didn’t say it was imminent, it’s happened already. They have settled.

Immaterial now, it would appear that Summit and BP have come to a ‘settlement’. Will probably be reported on the KSV site tomorrow.

Roughly correct.

Call was delayed, we will post all answers asap.

CAG

Contact MC.

Please see our message posted last night - please post any process questions on this thread and we’ll secure answers on our Monday call with MC.

Any discrepancies in your personal figures or circumstances, please refer them directly with MC by email.

Have a great weekend….

CAG

Folks

It’s great news that MC has started sending out terms of engagement, starting to feel very real now!

We appreciate that there may be some questions you have. CAG has a call booked with MC on Monday, so please ask any questions via this thread over the weekend and we will seek clarification during that call. These should only be questions relating to ‘the process’.

Should you feel that you have a discrepancy relating to your own figures etc, then these MUST be directed straight to MC, by return email. CAG cannot adjust, or check figures, that is between yourself and MC.

Have a great weekend….

CAG

Duster, as it says, they are expected to be no win, no fee with zero SH costs after stage 1. That is the basis on which we have engaged Mr Cotter. However, as was stated on all the zoom calls, there can be no guarantee that some additional resources may be required - expert witnesses, travel etc. He clearly stated that they are not expected, but as they are possible the wording will have had to allow for it.

Leeman

I’m all for free speech, but a simple reply to Mr Cotter would clarify things for you.

As for your comments on ‘the stages’, that question has been asked on every zoom call and was answered. Stage 1 is the only expected payment point to cover third party counsel over three jurisdictions. Following that, the case is to be fought on a no win, no fee basis. It was discussed on the calls and is covered in the letter. I was merely stating those facts, not getting on my high horse. A HUGE amount of work has gone into giving shareholders the opportunity to seek justice, so it’s quite understandable that I would do so.

There have been no further changes to fee bandings. If you have a personal discrepancy, then please take it directly with Mr Cotter, rather than spread doubt.

As for Stage One, this was clearly stated as being the one and only expected payment, as outlined in the terms of engagement sent out. Please read it in full and then make your decision. If not happy, simply your choice to say no.

CAG

Med, the answer is yes.

CAG

Your fears are unfounded, you have a very simple crystallised loss to chase ie £38K. Whether crystallised, uncrystallised or a bit of both, you can be part of the claim and there is no ‘pecking order’.

CAG

The level of interest was very high and above expectation. That said, we are 99% sure that there were many applications which were not genuine and designed to deflect - apparently this is quite common and against a strong case. So, difficult to be precise on numbers until invoices are out and payments come in, but it still looks strong. If ahead on numbers, this will allow us to work faster, shout louder and build an even stronger case. A stronger war chest means improved odds on us all securing the win we feel we are due. It’s a complex battle that will be fought on many fronts, so we’ll need all the ammunition we can muster.

CAG

Regardless of what Summit does, or does not do, we can still target all parties responsible for taking us to the position we found ourselves in when the share was suspended. The class action would still remain valid for the vast majority.

Good posts Stas, Summit do indeed have a choice to make.

Last post is very pertinent, please allow us to undertake communication for now, under the guidance of MC. Uncoordinated communication could prove detrimental. CAG

Think there was a link in one of his emails, I don’t have one to hand, sorry.

Stas

As stated in the zoom calls, MC plans litigation in three jurisdictions from the outset, not as an afterthought. One being the USA.

Stas

Unsure what your post is in reaction to, MC has not suggested lowering targeted claims in any way. If anything, the opposite.