Member Info for Ssccss

Just to be clear -

The judgment may have been yes/no on the relief sought, but that doesn't mean every underlying issue was black and white.

PPP acknowledged:

- JW paid for the shares;

- the company failed to register them (including when SL was in charge)

PPP then corrected the register before the hearing... Wonder if that would have been done so expeditely without the court case.

Yes, the court has concluded that the injunction / broader relief should not be granted, but that is not the same thing as saying the original complaint was entirely baseless or malicious. Again, worth noting: ppp didn't receive costs.

If the court thought the case was completely frivolous or abusive, an adverse costs order would have been more likely.

So “judge said no” is factually correct regarding the applications. But that doesn't automatically validate claims being made about JW's motives.

Try and stick to the facts. It's so entertaining that you want others to be reprimanded for posting facts and you just blatantly make claims which are not evidenced.

NU, how is my post nonsense??? It's the facts.

Not everything is black and white. Good guys and bad guys. That's a very simplistic view.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure if you understand what the case was for.

JW appears had a legitimate grievance about registration of shares. Due to this PPP were pushed to correct the issue before the recent AGM.

JW was also pursuing broader relief challenging resolutions/share issuance because he has been without voting rights or rights to sell I would assume since he bought the shares. Hardly fair imo.

The court refused the broader relief but apparently without treating JW as so unreasonable that he should pay PPP’s costs.

I know you all really believe this narrative about TE having associates that are trying to stop ppp from returning.

But don't you think if the judge thought the case against ppp was malicious, they would have ordered JW to pay costs??

I don't believe everything written on here.

I'm sure there will be a reason why JW didn't have to pay any costs.

Zag, your understanding is so basic.

Whole thing stinks gasman.

Most shareholders have given up or lost interest. Who can blame them.

Affrm is hopeful. Slightly different.

Optimism isn't going to get us out of suspension.

That's the issue. Lots of calls. Lots of RNSs. More directors. More costs and debt. But as shareholders, nothing has changed at all for 2 years nearly. How much longer can this drag on realistically? I do hope it's not bad news on Texas but it is looking that way due to the lack of update.

Shame there has been no rns update on texas.

Is it something to do with all these signatories mentioned on the call?

Unfortunately, I don't know dsaf. When will the rest of us be informed?

Trap? I give up. Bonkers. Hurry up ppp. I don't think anyone can take much more of this situation/board. Nearly 2 years. Joke. Why no update since the AGM.

Zag, how are you getting a detailed factual reply? They can't tell you more than what is already in the public domain. Otherwise, just creating more governance issues and obstacles to getting back from suspension. I don't follow.

Everyone wants to be loved. I'm sorry, I'll leave you to it. Hope it makes you happy.

Bless.

Very strange individual.