Member Info for stokey12

TakeAimFire - In relation to your 17.28 post I think and somebody who knows corporate law better than me will correct me if I am wrong you have to deduct any allocations under resolution 9 first to determine how many shares are left to use under the resolution 10 authority. Also you preume that there will not be an open offer to shareholders or a rights issue which would reduce any dillution.

Shareseeker10 - In relation to your 15.30 post I will be checking the court records on Thursday to see if Aries has filed notification that they have served the claim on all the defendants. There is a procedural hearing on the 8 October 2020 and the court would want to know want attempts there have been to settle the matter. If the claim has not been settled by then we will probably be looking at a trial which may not be for months.

I have just checked the companies house website to see what imformation is held on the company. The accounts for the year to October 2019 have not been filed, The full filing hstory can be found here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03259141/filing-history

Just seen this I do not believe this has been posted already https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/350-workers-wanted-revived-appledore-18877530 as Loosegoose said in his 20.54 post from Thursday this level of activity would only be done if there was some degree of confidence that there will be the work for them.

Next week on or before Wednesday we will get a RNS. This will be giving Notice of the AGM. It has to be given by Wednesday to allow for sufficient notice for the AGM to still be held in September. What would be interesting is if we have any resolutions connected to raising funds.

Does anyone know how are revenues split between the members of Team resolute. I note that if they win the FSS contract it will be built at Harland and Wolff does that mean that INFA will get the majority of the revenues?

I have just seen this https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2020/09/04/uk-hydrogen-campaign-gains-parliamentary-support/ If I am free I might listen to the debate.

Have a look at the CFO's profile it makes interesting reading. A very interesting skill set to go for in your CFO I wonder why they would need somebody with that particular skill set.

sea-miles - In relation to your 17.47 post I thnk you may be right in thinking that some or all of the management team would work across the two businesses. Certainly their job titles and description would support that.

debcashew In relation to your 17.39 post that is my reading. Of course they could settle the matter before the 8 October.

Bananaman2 - In relation to your 16.43 post if you look at the document in the link which is in my 16.24 that does not appear to be the case. My reading is that they would face a motion to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. As far as I can tell the sanction is monetary.

Bananaman2 - In relation to your 16.23 post the link appears to relate to UK Patent law and not US Patent Law. The relevan link for US Patent Law is https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents

Bananaman2 - In relation to your 15.56 post you are looking at the wrong version of the California Rules of Procedure which can be found here https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_110 this gives Aries only 60 days which brings you to 9 September.

As a certain person is exercised about the claim I thought I would clarify the upcoming important date based on the current order and the rules of procedure.

9 September - The last day for Aries to file notice that they have served the claim and to serve the claim.
1 October - An agreed settlement report has to be filed with the court for the hearing on 8 October.
8 October Scheduled hearing to determine if the matter is likely to settle if not decide a possible trial date and other procedural matters.

As EQT has 30 days from the date of service to file its defence it is no longer possible for EQT to file its defence before the settlement report has to be filed. Unless they need less than the maximum 30 days to file its defence.

isalingebruik In relation to your posts today a couple of observations. Firstly, anyone doing thier research would note that after reading the whole of the Aries claim I did not sell my shares. This would seem to indicate to an impartial observer that I am not overly concerned by it. Secondly, the claim was issued on the 9 July so the market has already in all probability priced in the claim so any share movement from hereon in is highly unlikely to be influenced by the infringement claim by Aries.

Tango1 In relation to your 17.50 post of yesterday I would observe that I am invested in PHE and we have been waiting for months for the government to announce its hydrogen strategy. So when the Prime Minister says watch this space I am not very confident. He could surprise me and come out with something in a matter of weeks but I am cautious.

Last year the government issued a consultation around CCSU. There was a brief mention of hydrogen the response from the government on the consultation is discussed in this article https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8fabbebe-d427-472f-8981-d843d006c5b6&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2020-09-03&utm_term= I was not impressed by what it said about hydrogen.

isalingebruik Can I ask what would you do if EQT either settles the Aries claim on terms favourable to it or suceeds in its defence and the share price spikes to 1.20. This is not that far fetched as you may think. If EQT in its defence countersues for the patents to be declared invalid then Aries may not wish to run the isk of the patents being declared invalid. You also have to rmember that Aries is a Tennesee registered Company, the two other Defendants are Californian companies, the project will benefit people in Caifornia, The Jury will be drawn from people in California and the case will be heard in the District Court in California.

Si_Derman In relation to your 07.36 post the full charge document can be found here https://jmp.sh/U38hEGe. As I read it the charge is to provide security for the consideration for the purchase of the appledore yard. The other agreements are not filed so it could be that the other businesses on Bidna yard are tenants of INFA who now owns the freehold. I will have to give the document a more thorough read.

I see two late trades have just been reported. I wonder what effect if anything it will have on the share price tomorrow.