Member Info for Spikeyj

would be a more accurate thread title.

i note that they haven't specified whether zark has now taken its full whack,
or whether zark is one of those who have still not coughed up all the wonga.

meanwhile, with the shares that they have managed to issue,
slowlyslowly continues to ignore the warrants that have been
issued as a sweetener to go with the placing shares. so altho'
the headline purchase price is 7p per share, in effect those
placees are getting the shares much cheaper, since they
also get given 1.25 warrants with exercise price of 8p for
free, with each placing share that they buy. anyone buying
at 7p in the market does not get those sweeteners. that
makes the effective placing price circa 5.25p (depending
how one values what those warrants are actually worth).

"... completion of the Fundraising in its entirety has been delayed pending receipt of funds ..."

perhaps a little tricky persuading some of the conditional subscription
punters to pay up for 7p shares, even with those juicy warrants, given
that share price languishing around 5p? - i thought it was interesting
that they had not previously confirmed that placing had completed.

lol, delisted from what exactly!?

whetstone has never been listed on any recognised exchange.

...for a while britdaq was prepared to take a fee to facilitate
matched trading between two individual parties. but britdaq
was certainly never a proper exchange, just a small platform.

no, i am spartacus.

that's just a reiteration of
their previous BP rating.

simple version:

extradition to UK from liechtenstein is possible,
but it is slower, harder, & less certain outcome.

more accurately, liechtenstein agrees to 'consider' **advice** from the EFTA court
regarding implementation of a european arrest warrant, whereas countries such
as france or germany are **bound** by EAW rulings from the EU's court of justice.

it's a complicated area, and brexit sure ain't gonna make it less so!

"A two-pillar system of supervision underpins the operation of the EEA Agreement. EU Member States are monitored by the European Commission, while EFTA States party to the EEA Agreement are monitored by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. Meanwhile the EFTA Court operates in parallel to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The EFTA Court has jurisdiction with regard to EFTA States party to the EEA Agreement (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The Court deals with infringement actions brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against an EFTA State with regard to the implementation, application or interpretation of EEA law. It also gives advisory opinions to courts in EFTA States on the interpretation of EEA rules, and hears appeals concerning decisions taken by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. Thus the functions fulfilled by the EFTA Court are similar to those fulfilled by the CJEU, save that the CJEU’s opinions are binding on domestic courts in EU Member States, while those of the EFTA Court are only advisory."

p16
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/16/16.pdf

there is an arrangement for extradition between UK and liechtenstein
under part 2 arrangements of the 2003 extradition act. however, if i
understand rightly, european arrest warrants don't cover liechtenstein

p475:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117673/extradition-review.pdf

attracting a major investment partner / buyout for what, exaxtly?

there is precious little / no evidence that ctag actually has
anything of any value at all to sell to anyone. no working
products, no independent reviews of worthwhile services,
no evidence they are the actual owners of any meaningful IP.

ctag appears to be hollow.

"It's worth noting that when the CPR's arrive, the directors can only work with what they have. "

... perhaps a softening-up 'hint' that the CPR will be ****-poor?

"The Group is confident that further finance for the Project will not be required..."

does not mean that no further finance for the *company* itself will be required.

not sure how much of this is down to DA personally?
i think a lot is about a broader malaise in the sector:

https://twitter.com/A_Milewski/status/1180221372796002305

carter, very reminiscent of the massive
BoD pay over at loss-making mxo /adme.

well, that adds a substantial layer of additional confidence, doesn't it?

so this is a company based (for now) in st. vincents?, with no published
accounts, no shareholder meetings, a CEO who is a Lichtenstein national,
which got dumped by its AIM Nomad, and never came up with a public
demonstration of any viable product that could be independently verified,
despite previous announcements of guaranteed sales orders. sounds great!

9:12, good post.

- gonna start working on my 'november' post now.
(may take a lot of work to figure out what content.)

"... have invested further ..."

is there are verifiable evidence in the public domain that
amit actually paid anything at all for these extra shares?

tomorrow should be when they RNS to confirm if the full amount
of proposed conditional shares are being admitted to AIM trading.

it would also be interesting to see who were the main sellers after that.
an up to date confirmation statement from whetstone would give that
data, if they used a similar format as the last time around. however, it
seems that they are about 6 weeks overdue submitting that statement.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10905791