Member Info for stokey12

In the commons the BEIS Ministers will be taking questions. Questions 1 - 3 and 20 are specifically on Hydrogen and its directions. If you want to watch questions will start at about 11.35 after prayers.

SteveX In relation to your 14.28 post if you have not done so already you could open a SIPP

There will be a statement in the Commons at about 4.30 on the energy white paper there might be a few things of interest in it.

The statement on the energy white paper will be at about 4-30pm it ill be live streamed by BBC News as well as on Parliament live.

I was thinking which is normally dangerous with all that waterfront land at Appledore why not install some turbines on the land and use the energy to run the yard with any excess being sold to the grid.

martinu In relation to your 10.14 post. My reading is slightly different. As I read it the basis of the motion to dismiss is 1 & 2. Prior art is not part of the basis of the motion to dismiss but is put in as part of the background. I suspect it is also there to show that there is a substantive defence and the motion has merit and is not the defendants trying to avoid judgement. Before Bananaman 2 comments I would point out that you have to look at the matter from the judge's point of view. If you put in the motion to dismiss without the background about the prior art he might take the view that the defendants are trying to avoid liability. So putting in about the prior art was a smart move as it in effects says there is a viable defence.

I have just recieved the link to register for the AGM. If you have arranged through your broker to attend you should have recieved the link as well. The link is only being sent to shareholders that includes people whose shares that are in a nominee account.

Tango1 I noticed that also it appears to being berthed there for a month not due to leave until 6 January. I think Heyn Engineering are doing work on it as they are showing as both the inward and outward agent.

Noted this in the order paper for the Commons

Defence Sub-Committee
Subject: Foreign Involvement in the Defence Supply Chain
Witnesses: 3.15pm: Nadhim Zahawi MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Minister for
Business and Industry), and Dr Sarah Mackintosh, Deputy Director for National Security
and Investment, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
4.00pm: Jeremy Quin MP, Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement), Huw
Walters, Director, Economic Security and Prosperity, Air Marshal Richard Knighton CB,
10 Monday 14 December 2020 OP No.148: Part 1 Committees Meeting Today
Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability), and Lieutenant General Jim
Hockenhull OBE, Chief of Defence Intelligence, Ministry of Defence
The Wilson Room, Portcullis House
3.00pm (private), 3.15pm (public)

Anyone interested can watch it on Parliament Live. Also if you are interested in more information the inquiry pagescan be found here https://committees.parliament.uk/work/490/foreign-involvement-in-the-defence-supply-chain/ Under publications there are four pieces of correspondence.

I came across ths page http://www.marine.ie/Home/site-area/infrastructure-facilities/research-vessels/vessel-schedules?language=en it would seem that the Celtic Explorer is back in for another refit having had a refit in January. Going by the length of stay showing on the Belfast Harbour this is a more significant refit.

martinu In relation to your 11.09 post it is not the same company if you register direct with PACER which is free there is no monthly fee and the charge for searches and documents are 10 cents per search and 10c for each page so you are actually paying 50% more than if you went direct to PACER. Also if you only incur less than $30 in a quarter you will have fees waived. You may want to use this company but I think you wold find it cheaper to go to the PACER site.

Just seen this article. If anyone has access to the Belfast Telegraph can you post the full story https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/police-shut-harland-and-wolff-welders-social-club-as-belfast-punters-show-little-appetite-for-meal-rule-39855982.html

Lottie123 Thanks for your 09.46 post it is just that nothing about this was in the email I got on Friday sayig what is going to happen in the House of Commons in the following week. So I was puzzled as a planned announcement should have shown up. This is going to be interesting as I have a very small holding in CNA which will be adversely affected. However this will be offset by my holdings in INFA and PHE

Lottie123 In relation to your 08.29 post where did you hear that the energy white paper will be published tomorrow?

martinu - In the main yes there were two notices of appearance also filed on the 10/12. Just out of interest were where you looking at? I use https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ after you register you can get access to all filed documents, While they do charge if you keep charges to below $30 quarter fees are waived.

Bandicoot In relation to your 06.38 post if you read the agreed order for a waiver it does state that the parties were going to negotiate to see if a commercial resolution could be found. Why that was put in I am not sure and while I do not like guessing it was perhaps to get Aries to agree to the other two Defendants having until 10 December to file thier defences. In addition the Court expects the parties to have attempted to settle this dispute. It would be interesting to see the Aries response.

Bananaman2 In relation to your 07.49 post having read part of the motion to dismiss I do not agree with your view. My view is that Aries wanted EQT to provide sensitive material information to thier CTO but EQT would only provide it to outside counsel at that point any attempt to settle failed and the motion to dismiss was filed. Noting that the motion to dismiss was filed on the 10 December I strongly suspect that it was done now to prevent an application for summary judgement due to no defence being filed. Also I do not believe that this motion to dismiss was filed with the agreement or knowledge of Aries as it does not read as a consensual motion.

On timing I suspect that this motion will be heard at the same time as the existing hearing in January.

Further to my 19.37post of yesterday the motion to dismiss can be found here https://jmp.sh/xdeQbua I did not download any of the exhibits to the motion.

gaim123 In relation to your 21.17 post my reason for saying that the negotiations did not go well is that if the negotiations went well the Defendant's would not have filed a motion to dismiss.

I have just done a check of the court file. Looks like the negotiations did not go well on Thursday instead of filing their defences all three defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. I have not read the motion will do so tomorrow. Interestingly the proposed order does not mention costs.

Article in a trade paperthat might generate some interest https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/12/10/triumph-opts-for-uk-made-wind-farm-vessels/