Member Info for Spikeyj

classic amit. gotta hand to the guy, he has chutzpah.

he makes an announcement that there will be an announcement.

and then when that announcement comes, surprise surprise, it
is an announcement that there will be another announcement.

(i wonder who is the responsible person operating the escrow account
holding those funds. sadly, as yet amit hasn’t provided the relevant
contact details ? perhaps it’s an escrow account being overseen by that
well known, highly respected financial intermediary, tima maih-neb?)

poor little can. yet again.

hi hubba, re your 12:02, you ought to know this already, but if you don’t
want to read/see posts by someone on the LSE chatboards, me or anyone
else, you can just use the filter option —> hey presto, problem solved, free,
easy. (me, i don’t mind one way or the other whether you do or not.). hth.

seems a little overdone. added a few.

? so it’s fine for someone else to ramp about apple’s
meeting but not for me to mention buffet’s? … lol!

“Only 3 more days until we see once and for all if he has been telling the truth.”

more accurately, should add, “… on this particular occasion”, since there
have been multiple other times in the past when the answer to that question
about many other things amit stated has already been abundantly obvious.

just to add to the general party atmosphere, may 6th is the annual
general meeting of berkshire hathaway. ? coincidence? - spooky!

so this week we finally get to hear the outcome of that massive bidding war
between apple and warren buffet (- unless of course spaceX whacks in a last
minute bid to trump them both for amit’s top-secret tech & secure it for elon).

sorry, autocorrect playing up, ‘risebrow’, not ricebrow.

hugh ricebrow.

(who then said, no, that’s not true.

thanks, have a good weekend.

? do you remember much about the SAG / class action stuff, Pdes? - not
something i knew that much about even at the time, let alone years later.

soz, typo, meant of course, “i have no idea what pikeyK is on about … [etc]”

i have no idea about pikeyK is on about re tortious interference in relation to
CTAG, nor “TW calling in favours”. if he’d like to explain, i’d be happy to read.

re the “attempted class action farce”, i didn’t follow that very closely at the time,
although i remember there was a SAG at the time which didn’t seem to achieve
much, and some chatter on the boards about the idea that the SAG was being
deliberately undermined by some folk who were operating within it, on a
clandestine basis to protect the company from shareholder action. i wasn’t
part of the SAG, & have no idea if that was true or not. but if anyone would care
to explain what happened and it’s CTAG related, again i’d be v happy to read.

**

but re pikeyK challenging my use of the word ‘miscommunication’; - that’s not
my own term, it’s the word used by amit ben-haim & tony reeves in the official
RNS issued on 28/2/17, headed “Update on Suspension”. (released at the same
time as a separate RNS stating the nomad had accelerated their resignation,
and instead of resigning with effect from april actually quit at c.o.b. 27/2/17.)

https://www.investegate.co.uk/cloudtag-inc.--ctag-/rns/update-on-suspension/201702281150020754Y/

extract from CTAG RNS:
“Due to a miscommunication between the Company and Novum in
relation to information relating to the placing and the subsequent
material adverse market reaction to the notification made by the
Company on Friday 24 February 2017, the Company and Novum have
mutually agreed to cancel and terminate the Subscription Agreement.”

so “miscommunication” is amit’s word, not
mine. (…seems rather euphemistic to me.)

yeah, i agree, but surely once the non-technical person in that kind
of situation realises they have been misled, if they’ve got some kind
of leadership role, BoD responsibility etc, - ? then surely they ought
to communicate properly about that to their shareholders and the
wider market? - if a CEO does belatedly discover something has gone
very wrong, they shouldn’t just cover it up or pretend all was fine.

(so far as i’m aware, amit never put out any detailed explanatory statement
highlighting major problems with a technical contractor, apologising for
that, explaining the extent of the damage, and outlining corrective action?)

one other thought (then coffee and guzleme beckon!) re 15:32.

if cloudtag had simply been dissolved immediately after that
botched placing and delisting, imv it would have been much
more likely that some folks would have started trying to take
legal action then to recover funds they’d put into cloudtag.

[tho’ still begging the question what outcomes
there might have been from any such action]

an obvious point for scrutiny would have been the “miscommunication”
regarding novum, cloudtag and the nomad. ? what was the exact nature
of that miscommunication, whose fault was it, & what level of damage
resulted to shareholder funds and liquidity as a result? my guess,
one of the effects of keeping the company superficially alive on a
private basis meant some folk who might have sued / gone to FCA
ended up staying on board relatively patiently (some pre-IPOing!)

jmho.

(?if a CEO doesn’t have “the right people” working for him, whose fault is that?)

Rktech, re your 15:32, i agree it seems perfectly plausible that they
had rubbish contractors. but i don’t really see how that lets amit off
the hook / would give investors confidence in amit and his promises?

after all, that all happened under his watch as CEO, and (a) he was
presumably involved in the contract specifications & initial agreements
to secure contractors, then he should have been monitoring what was
actually being achieved and delivered, taking remedial action if there were
snags /delays etc, & very crucially amit should have been communicating
transparently with cloudtag shareholders and the market as a whole.

so if they had useless contractors and amit never realised they were inept,
that says something about amit anyway. but if they had useless contractors
and amit let that carry on, while he was in charge, and didn’t provide clear &
transparent feedback to investors about emerging contractor problems, that
surely that doesn’t reflect well on him either? — he was the CTAG CEO, not just
some passive investor who had handed over money for other people to deploy.

similarly, it wouldn’t be the inept contractors who were responsible
for stuff like e.g., hints that hugh rice-pudding had been recruited,
e.g. the guff about runway construction, e.g. the fiasco with the
“miscommunication’ about the botched placing with novum.

Rktech 15:32: “…if the 5th May comes and goes with nothing
then no one but the deluded would have any further confidence…”

hubbabubbas 10:53: “…there will no tears shed from me whether the 5th
May passes with news or not. You know me by now, I will still be confident…”

yup, post of the day.

hmm, no reply from AWBA yet. (?maybe after he’s had his tea?)

14/4/23 CTAG 14:21 AWBA:

“From where i sit you e [sic] “had a right result”.”

“From a Birds [sic] Eye view I’m slightly envious for the position
many of you will realise in a few weeks when “the announcement”
is made and transaction concluded which is inevitable…”

… that doesn’t sound like it’s a post from someone who is a shareholder
themself, & yet AWBA professes to be astounded why anyone would post
on a share where they do not have a “vested interest”. ? so what is AWBA’s
own ‘vested interest’ and reason for posting here himself? how curious.

meanwhile, still no answer from AWBA from when i asked him why he
claimed that it’s “inevitable” amit’s “transaction” will be “concluded”.

slight reframe of 13:19, antha; i think cloudtag partly illustrates how much
weight one should place on stock market regulation, vs other factors. CTAG
*was* regulated while on AIM, not unregulated, and all this still happened.