Member Info for Spadger42

They try to get air space, I wish this bb worked differently, where you could tick a box and say I like him allow me to read his interesting information and another where you did the room 101

Agree, we’ve been through so much with this share I can’t even imagine not being in it, it’s S*** or bust with this. Have to say Vinson earlier post today was warm reading after a day of utter S*+=^ and not all because of Amgo btw.
Hold tight all you LTHs and those day trippers do one, some nasty stuff on here, I hope I’d never wish anyone to lose money they’ve worked hard for. Live by it die by it. Today I’m not doing GLA just GLA LTHs and those new to this who believe.

If we’d have stated 99% of these claims are fraudulent we’d have been made to prove it, how can you say shareholders were 250% up in a year it’s just lies.

But if it’s not relevant why was it brought up and given as evidence ? Everything said in court is to sway a judges opinion one way or another and I’d seriously consider telling a few white lies to make amigo look more of a cash rich company is lying.

Ok your point taken, now let’s apply that rule to what Amigo had to do to put forward an agreement. Hands up who fits into a 250% gain over the last year ? Should a 5% return on that vote be accepted as a 100% quota on all shareholders ? It’s false representation, I bet it’s not even 5% rules for one and not for another.

By no means am I legally adept but I’d ask this question and a serious one.
Did the fca mislead the judge in its numbers, 250% % rise in SP ? Where is that ? I’ve held for nearly 2 years and not seen that ?
Also in stating clearly we had a 200m pot that could be used to aid the bill. That’s not our money.
2 points that mislead the judge in this case I’d say, if he thought those points were fact there’s no wonder he made the decision he did.
Misleading a judge
Rule 11.01 of the code provides that "you must never deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court". The code guidance provides that a solicitor would not normally be guilty of an offence under this section if he or she inadvertently misled the court
The law prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonesty.

Your needed today mate, steady the ship ; )

Having just read that, I’d suggest it took some days to put together, you don’t just write a 33 page report that quickly, a lot of thought has gone into it. Once started you really follow your judgement through. Point being did he write this not knowing the SP had dropped 45%? Has this judge made his decision not seeing the losses created ? It’s gone from 30p to 8p, on average let’s suggest the average share holder owns 10k of shares they've all lost £7500 of that INVESTMENT, we didn’t falsify a LOAN form and it looks very obviously that politics are swaying this decision. They’d rather allow fraud to win compensation rather than people who’ve actually earnt the money they’ve put in.

I hope that AMGO have put in any future deal that any claim must be proven to not be false and NO fraudulent claims on behalf of the lender will get zero redress. Why should we pay from our hard earnt for fraudulent claims ! As JB said and he stated 99% of claims were false, agreed with guarantors.
I’m all for someone who’s been diddled getting redress but this is becoming ridiculous, fraud is fraud and just because you can’t count doesn’t mean you should pass judgement and kill a company. How on earth has a judge been led to believe this company has gone up 250% in the last year ? It just has not, not even at its peak was it that high. He’s now wiped out any positives and put everyone in negativity, knocked 100m of the MC and I’d say put Amgo in an awkward position to even stay to their original offer. Something doesn’t smell right to me on this, in fact I think it bl**** stinks. Should Amgo now just tell the fca to go away and come back with their answers, don’t waste their tie on any deals as clearly all the work they put into this hasn’t been looked at at all. False figures by the fca have been accepted as fact and a vote with 95% agreement has been ignored. What is the point of making any effort, throw the whole kit and caboodle into the fca hands and tell them to get on with it , they alone have caused this and possibly cost their claimants redress.

Well one decision has wiped 100m off our MC, how does that help ?

Well Simon the deal Amigo has put forward will give you your compensation, I doubt any other company you borrowed from will be as helpful, more likely a knock on the door from the bailiff. The thing I don’t understand with your post is you say not enough checks were made and it was easy. Did you not have a guarantor ? Because simply you wouldn’t of got the loan without. I’m not judging your past, we all make mistakes, I hope you’ve sorted things out but debt camel helping you ? Are they doing that for nothing ? More like 30% of YOUR claim. It’s the old adage you get nothing for nothing in this life. Hoping your post was just trolling and your not genuinely in that position. If you are trolling well shame on you, there are good people on here, some not so but feeding into this thread and telling stories is pretty low, if true good luck to you and gambling mate, only 1 winner.

Oh right I was under the impression we’d be contributing 15% from our dividends over 4 years, I’ve clearly read that wrong. Cheers

If it passes wouldn’t it be part of the repayment plan to start paying dividends out ASAP. Assuming 15% is being paid towards the claims it would make sense to re introduce it as soon as we start getting some profit in. ?

Filtered de ramper

What’s disgraceful is posting car&& on a board to try frighten someone out of their shares so you can mop them up cheaply to me that’s a parasite. If you don’t like amigo tell them or do you think they’ll read your post and change their interest rate ?

De ramper my overdraft is 39.8% amigo fills gap needed or they’d go to loan sharks.
How much do charge to haunt a house btw

I initially 35p then hold for lending and shortly upto 50-60p. Long term £2

That would be construed as insider trading knowledge :(

Ok who held when it went to -45% your my kind of people :( I think we’ve just shown the judge he’s not only gambling with the compensation he’s gambling with all of our money. Its not how I think it should be done as a lot of folk will have lost out but ...

Frankly is right, think of it in terms of your mortgage, say it’s with NatWest. You have a 2nd charge on your house with Joe Boggs and go bankrupt. NatWest have first charge on their money and get it all, Joe Bloggs gets naff all of theirs nothing left in the pot. So the judge sounds like a clever man from the hearing and he’ll reads his notes and make a decision based on facts, he’ll possibly go down the route of asking for an amendment to the share scheme, if we are taking 15% on our dividends I’d expect the share scheme to take their burden of responsibility which I’m not 100% sure they are apart from the dividend.