Member Info for Thordon

Supreme Court is the last step , can not keep up with Ukraine law
They lost on technicality on being on when the assessment was carried out in 2015 but the law states must be done within 3 years of permit extension.
The Law was changed after the permit extension was submitted
The Communication is not good with its share holders , once you understand how Ukraine law works it takes me a few minutes now to find the cases , first time nearly 2 hours

Problem is when you have consolidation this sends alarm bells as it could mean further fund raises.
Best wait for profit.
Looking at projections and TRX are going to have to issue a extension to profit , the company is spread over the world for there products , except for a few country's then this will be prolonged.
matters not im Long term for the cupboard

The problem is Hydrogen is on the cusp and not fully here , its getting on the slow train that stops at every station at some point demand picks up and you past all the train station and go full ahead in half the time.
We are five years away at least , for me invest and wait.
Problem is will the CEO hold and wait
Selling the marine business would be crazy as delivers dividends to main TP Group plus management fees of around £5 million a year , sell and that is lost.
if they sell marine business then im out and a good profit as shares will rise but will they ?
That's a very good question
When you sell your diamond whats left

11 months set my alarm clock

My taking is the failed suppliers to the NHS with Totally having across the board a grade A rating over company's do not and may be force to shutdown. Totally picking up the pieces as been shown in the past.
Totally have corporate structure and can turn round failing company's , most of the time its about paper work and would appear very adapt to this.

Radium1 - one thing your not a investor and two your ****ed off with one investor here because has a grip on your chatroom.
In fact may join to see what the fuse is about , then may just follow you around
If you read the white paper then you would know you are talking rubbish.

# Trades 56
Vol. Sold 103,766
Sold Value £78.34k
Vol. Bought 146,843
Bought Value £110.87k

can confirm more buys then sells

Also added In-long can not miss out ; just feels that something is afoot
Not checked if the 2.1% shorting still in place but as the CEO has said something is not right regarding the mass of shares floating about and no TR1 selling

Krok you bounce from one oil stock to another , as for JKX they are making 3 times the profit then that of ENW

Reminder written by you on ENW
Production is down by 332 boepd

Their latest well gave them 565 boepd

Without this well, the decline would have been 897 boepd. That’s almost 20% decline from natural depletion! Extremely high for gas wells!

People on twitter saying production will undoubtedly go higher are idiots

ENW needs two wells per year just to maintain production. That’s $20-25 mn in capex - more than the company earns

Mistakes can be made , did not see this disclosed

SIXTH ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF APPEAL Case No. 640/12569/19 Judge of the first instance: Skochok TO

DECREE

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

February 23, 2021, Kyiv

The panel of judges of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal composed of:

presiding judge - Pylypenko OE

of judges - Sobkiva Ya.M. and Stepanyuk AG,

under the secretary - Vasilenko YA,

with:

representative of the plaintiff: - Karpyuk LR,

representative of the third person: - Gnatenko OA,

Having considered in open court the appeals of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" , the Limited Liability Company "Naftogazsekspluatatsiya" , the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine against the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv from October 6, 2020 in the case of an administrative claim of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogas" to the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, third parties: Limited Liability Company "Naftogazsekspluatatsiya" , the company "Oy Land Gez Eversis Trading BV" on the recognition of inaction illegal and the obligation to take action,

INSTALLED:

In July 2019, the plaintiff - Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" appealed to the District Administrative Court of Kyiv with an administrative claim to the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, third parties: Limited Liability Company "Naftogazsekspluatatsiya" , Company "Oy Land Gez Eversis Trading" Bi.Vi "on the recognition of inaction as illegal and the obligation to take action, in which he requested:

- declare illegal the actions of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine to return the application of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" dated 09.10.2018 N 30 to obtain a special permit for subsoil use;

- to recognize illegal inaction of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine on non- adoption of a decision (order) on the application of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" dated 09.10.2018 N 30 to obtain a special permit for subsoil use;

- to oblige the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine to consider the application of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" dated 09.10.2018 N 30 to obtain a special permit for subsoil use in essence with the adoption of the relevant decision (order);

- to oblige the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine based on the results of consideration of the application of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" dated 09.10.2018 N 30 to grant the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" a special permit for subsoil use of Pirkiv oil and gas condensate field, for geological study, including experimental and industrial development of fields, with the subsequent extraction of oil, gas (industrial development of fields).

By the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of October 6, 2020, the administrative claim was partially satisfied.

Sorry wrong tax case ignore

SIXTH ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF APPEAL Case No. 640/20625/18 Judge of the first instance: Golovan OV

DECREE

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

(abbreviated)

November 24, 2020, Kyiv

The panel of judges of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal composed of:

presiding judge - Pylypenko OE

of judges - Babenko KA and Stepanyuk AG,

under the secretary - Kuzyk OS,

with:

representative of the plaintiff: - Oleksienko TV,

representative of the defendant: - Dyby YD,

having considered in open court the appeals of the individual - entrepreneur PERSON_1 and the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv against the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv from 18 May 2020 in the case of an administrative claim of the individual - entrepreneur PERSON_1 to the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in Kyiv on the recognition of illegal and cancellation of tax notices - decisions of 20.11.2018,

Guided by Art. 241 , 242 , 308 , 310 , 317 , 321 , 322 , 325 , 329 CAS of Ukraine , panel of judges

DECIDED:

The appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv should be dismissed.

The appeal of a natural person - entrepreneur PERSON_1 - to satisfy in part.

The decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of May 18, 2020 - to cancel and adopt a new resolution, which the administrative claim of an individual - entrepreneur PERSON_1 - to satisfy in part.

Declare illegal and cancel tax notices-decisions of the Main Department of the SFS in Kyiv dated 20.11.2018 N 0119684204, N 0119664204, N 0119714204, N 0119674204, N 0119694204, N 0119704204, N b / n and tax claim dated 20.11.2018 N 367.

In satisfaction of other claims of an individual - entrepreneur PERSON_1 - refuse.

To collect at the expense of budgetary allocations of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv (04116, Kyiv, 33/19 Sholudenka Street), 39439980) in favor of a natural person-entrepreneur PERSON_1 (ADDRESS_1, code NUMBER_1) UAH 35,240. paid court fees (thirty-five thousand two hundred and forty hryvnias).

The decision of the court comes into force from the date of its adoption and can be appealed by filing a cassation appeal directly to the Supreme Court within thirty days from the date of the full court decision.

Presiding Judge: Pylypenko OE

Judge: Babenko KA

Stepanyuk AG

SIXTH ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF APPEAL Case No. 640/12569/19 Judge of the first instance: Skochok TO

DECREE

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

(abbreviated)

February 23, 2021, Kyiv

The panel of judges of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal composed of:

presiding judge - Pylypenko OE

of judges - Sobkiva Ya.M. and Stepanyuk AG,

under the secretary - Vasilenko YA,

with:

representative of the plaintiff: - Karpyuk LR,

representative of the third person: - Gnatenko OA,

Having considered in open court the appeals of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" , the Limited Liability Company "Naftogazsekspluatatsiya" , the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine against the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv from October 6, 2020 in the case of an administrative claim of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogas" to the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, third parties: Limited Liability Company "Naftogazsekspluatatsiya" , the company "Oy Land Gez Eversis Trading BV" on the recognition of inaction illegal and the obligation to take action,

Guided by Art. 241 , 242 , 308 , 310 , 317 , 321 , 322 , 325 , 329 CAS of Ukraine , panel of judges, -

DECIDED:

The appeal of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" - to leave without satisfaction.

Appeals of the Limited Liability Company "Naftogazsekspluatatsiya" , the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine - to satisfy.

The decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of October 6, 2020 - to cancel and adopt a new resolution, which in satisfaction of the administrative claim of the Limited Liability Company "Astrogaz" to refuse in full.

The decision of the court comes into force from the date of its adoption and can be appealed by filing a cassation appeal directly to the Supreme Court within thirty days from the date of the full court decision.

Presiding Judge: Pylypenko OE

Judge: Sobkiv Ya.M.

Just say one fact that theirs a product or IP for this company , certified and approved after 40 years investing
Simple question

Sorry Guys & girls did not check the cisco was in the ARR , just assumed it was not.
But the pay per minute basis is excluded

Wentworth are still in closed period , something on the a foot

Lol he sold to his own company when he went above 30% by accident , then used the warrants to buy into INSP to buy more at a good discount.
Then sells to the market at a profit at all times making the % seem that he has never sold or bought any , magic and clever.
Still a non trustworthy individual and poor investors in OCT

Good point draft , eco is good but if makes no profit then its not wanted

Oh dear , sounds like a merger at hand then
Hold Wentworth but the language been tough on buyouts then again a Merger would be logical.
Always wanted to buy into AEX , if a merger then would be a good deal as a enlarge company and pays a dividend.
To note Wentworth are still in closed period so you never know.

You are forgetting Cisco sales as well , also any calls not on a ARR contract but just pay as you go.
Makes a difference

Strange no pattern of any sellers from the raise , todays just very random numbers and no logic.
So on that basis we had no sellers except random PI
No logic for this ? unless anyone else can explain