Member Info for Spikeyj

1/2/24 10:15 hubba: “I and many others will be here for as long as it takes, good or bad outcome…”

hubba still doesn’t understand that this *is* the outcome, already (and has been for a long time).

cloudtag died the death years ago, before amit then bought an (entirely separate) off the shelf off-shore company and renamed it cloudtag to make some pis think there was some kind of continuity with the defunct AIM company.

meanwhile, pikey and 1984 still have their tongues rammed firmly up amit’s crack, while someone has hacked into mrcoffee’s shilling account to make it seem that he is threatening legal action. (scary stuff, amit will be quaking in his boots!)

07:58, only full-on gullible nutters would have kept faith after that utterly risible garbage from amit about the foreign exchange $/£ issue just before xmas. anyone stupid enough to believe that one would believe pretty much anything from anyone.

this latest update is simply frivolous.

Gonna be away for 2-3 weeks, try not to break the EUA share price while i’m away (you neither, B1ll!).

if the whole chatboard has gone by the time i get back, i’ll assume that’s ‘cos the massive asset sale has happened and everyone has gone to sun themselves on their private tropical islands.

… laters!!

Got all my digging done last week, b1ll, ground too frosty now. just waiting for feb when i can start sowing seeds.

(& good luck to anyone trying to enforce any undertaking from queeld!!!)

As per 09:38, EUA had insisted on 3rd party certificate. EUA did not get that.

I disagree b1ll. if there are snowflakes around who get easily ‘triggered’, as the gen zeds say, by reading things that upset them, then personally i am all for the poor wee things sticking their fingers in their ears & covering their eyes. ( - probably not a great investment strategy for said snowflakes, but that’s not my problem - )

EUA had been insisting that queeld provide an indemnity certificate from a third party. EUA did not get that.

Re the idea of “At least 1 person will have been contacted…”, bear in mind that amit recently emphasised [21/12/23] that “the agent needs to notify all platforms and shareholders in unison.”

… so if amit was telling the truth, then everyone should be contacted at once.

[lol, ‘threat’ rather than ‘treat’! — except for the lawyers who cashed in on fees whatever the outcome]

“So it is either exactly £108K OR, much more likely, LESS THAN £108K, or, I agree, EUA would have just paid it.”

you are just making up the scenario that you prefer. perfectly plausible imo that EUA were forced to pay up in full because of the imminent treat of a winding up order.

… still, makes a change on this BB to have at least a couple of posts actually about EUA, seldom seems to happen these days. night all.

No indemnity certificate was provided, as EUA originally demanded. that’s clear enough.

you admit that you simply do not know what sums were paid to settle the gowling claim. daft therefore to claim that EUA ‘won’ it.

“You don’t bandy around the word ‘successful’ around unless you came out on top.”

LOL! - absolute b***s***, especially from an outfit like EUA.

no argument from me at all about EUA winning their tax case. but you were pretending EUA had won all court cases against them.

Beast, MyIPA’s claim at 15:17 was:

“All these court cases now done and dusted - and we won them all.”

no dissent from me about EUA winning the tax case. if he’d simply said, “EUA won the tax case”, i wouldn’t have questioned it.

but MyIPA wasn’t just referencing that one case. he was making a rather broader, and far more dubious, claim.

Yes, that was my own understanding - i.e. EUA had previously tried to insist that they would not provide a replacement share certificate unless queeld provided an indemnity certificate. however, now EUA have backed down on that stipulation, and agreed to provide a replacement certificate without an indemnity certificate being provided by anyone (albeit with a grace period before issuance to see if anyone else steps up making a rival claim to own those shares).

… but MyIPA appears to be trying to suggest otherwise … so i am curious to see his explanation / clarification.

“… and of course we dont [sic] know the eventual sum…”

? so why claim it as a ‘win’ for EUA?

“… it does in fact provide an indemnity to EUA on the basis of Queelds solicitors…”

apologies, but i don’t know what you mean. ? are you saying that queeld’s *solicitors* have themselves underwritten an indemnity for EUA? - rather unusual, to put it mildly, if so.

… & if EUA ended up paying gowling the money that it owed gowling, in what sense would that count as a ‘win’ for EUA?

“i suspect we already owed it”

? so why let it go to court & WUP?

[sorry, gowling, not gowing]

“All these court cases now done and dusted - and we won them all.”

interesting interpretation. ? as, if i remember rightly (sure someone will kindly correct me if not!?) …

queeld wanted replacement share certificate, without having to provide an indemnity certificate, which EUA were trying to insist on - outcome, queeld *are* being given replacement share certificate, & without having to provide indemnity certificate … looks like a win for queeld, who will very soon be footloose and fancy-free to trade those shares.

gowing wanted EUA to pay them their money. outcome? — no disclosure about what EUA paid in the end, so that remains unknown - possible, for instance, that faced with the threat of court action / WUP, EUA rolled over and paid gowing every penny that gowing were asking for. possible, of course, that EUA bargained them down to a much smaller amount … but no data available —- hence, no public, independently verifiable evidence to back up MyIPA’s assertion that “we won them all” .