Member Info for Toffers

Ruchard98 factually incorrect and I'm reporting you. I have virtually no holding.

Bfd, we had no idea of the logik case, that only came to light after proceedings were issued, same with Queeld/Mispare, that was withheld for some time, and now Gowlings, our own lawyers have issued a WUP in the High Court and it takes DmitryReacts of all people to tell us, except his plan backfired when he notified it on Friday morning and then tried to change tack on Friday afternoon stating it was settled 'factchecked' when it clearly isn't. The company will have been warned about the WUP being forthcoming at least 3 weeks ago and they've then plummeted shareholders further in to the quagmire by allowing it to happen. Queeld/Mispare is bad enough as if they lose that, it is surely going to be goodbye to the company here. It's just an utter shambles. my views.

Dear God officecat, you lot have never been right, red flags everywhere for the last 2/3 years and you still proclaim that all is hunkydory. Are you on skunk or something? must be.

Richard98 look back at my posting history however it would seem that may be you an't read, but if you do, you will see that I sold my holdings between 16p down to 12p. I then purchased a few much later on just as a gamble but exited quickly when asking myself what the hell was I doing. I might have a few stragglers somewhere in an account I rarely operated, but it will be under 100 shares for sure.

Bfd I was in this from early 2019, so do not question my integrity, I am fully aware of all the shenanigans. Those who have been warning about red flags for some time, are the ones who are being proved right, the sp and the court proceedings indicate that don't you think? of course you do but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Business days before the hearing.

I'll post this again from Gowlings site as a reminder;

"If a debt remains unpaid the next step will be to issue a WUP. The procedure is governed by the extremely stringent rules set out is the IA 86 and IR 2016. The key steps include:

drafting the petition, containing all information required by the IR 2016 (76.5). This will include details of the court and the petitioner, the identity of the company, its share capital, a statement of the company's business and the grounds upon which the winding-up order is sought. Where a statutory demand has been served on the company, the petition must also include a statement confirming that fact, the date of service, the fact the demand remains outstanding and that the company is insolvent and unable to pay its debts;

paying the appropriate court fee to issue the petition and an additional sum as the 'petition deposit'. The latter (if the petition is successful) will be passed to the OR to manage the initial stages of the 'winding-up' process. The petition should be issued in the High Court of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. If there are sufficient realisations in the ultimate liquidation of the company, the petition deposit costs will be paid out as a priority expense back to the petitioning creditor;

serving the WUP on the company. It should be handed to a director or other officer or employee of the company at the registered office or to someone who is authorised to accept service on the company's behalf. If that is not possible, an alternative method as prescribed in schedule 4 to the IR 2016 should be followed;

filing a certificate of service, confirming the manner in which service was effected, at court as soon as reasonably practicable after service; and

giving notice of the WUP by advertising it in the London Gazette. This ensures other interested parties are aware of the petition, the date fixed for the hearing and it provides them with the details they need if they want to support or oppose the petition.

Notice of the petition must appear in the Gazette not less than seven business days after service of the petition and not less than seven business days before the day of the hearing. Advertising the petition will potentially notify other creditors that a petition has been issued and when it is to be heard. If the petition is not advertised as required the court can dismiss it.

This is a critical step in the process. If a petition is advertised in the Gazette this can have devastating consequences for the company. Banks monitor the Gazette closely and as soon as a petition is advertised the company will ordinarily have its accounts frozen and will no longer have access to any funds. In circumstances where the company considers it inappropriate for a WUP to have been presented, it can take steps to prevent advertisement of the petition in the Gazette.

filing a certificate of compliance, which confirms notice of the petition has been given, at court not less than five

richard98 you and your henchmen have never been right in the last 3 years! the proof is in the pudding. you lot keep posting that there's nothing wrong here, yet you immediately attack and abuse posters who question otherwise, and it's the posters who have had doubts that have so far been proved to be right!

here's a reminder list of the few monumental ****ups to date with this company.

the previous nomad walked without notice leaving the share suspended for the max length of time possible bar a few hours!

ac sold a mass of shares and the company claimed they had no knowledge of the same.

suspension occurred again then when clearly there was a disagreement between ds and other board members over that incident, and ds clearly flounced off and hasn't shown any interest since and is busy running an investment business in hk.

the company withheld any details of the dispute with queeld and mispare, their biggest shareholders bar ds, which had been ongoing since 2018 and only came to light several months after proceedings had been issued in the high court.

then the logik case suddenly appeared and none of us are any the wiser over that and what the company had contracted with them about exactly as it was never rns'd.

now we learn that they haven't paid their own lawyers who brokered a settlement for them in relation to the logik case, i mean, how bad is that? they've pulled you out of the quagmire and you don't pay them? i can imagine what a high court judge is going to think of that! it then taints the queeld/mispare case for the company, as these proceedings are all in the same court arena, and judges talk and walls have ears!

and then there's everything else which i'm sure many can add to the list, it's just been an utter and complete shambles.

if they don't suspend first thing, there will undoubtedly be a disorderly market tomorrow morning, and suspension will surely have to occur before the end of the day. what on earth has the nomad been playing at allowing all of these things to occur in this manner? it's shocking. no wonder the previous nomad got out, they must be celebrating that they managed to get out unscathed! of course, the other issue now is, if they can't even pay gowlings, the nomad isn't going to hang around if he isn't going to get paid, so suspension is looking very likely imo.

Wonder if Queeld/Mispares lawyers will make an urgent application to the court tomorrow morning to seek interim injunctive relief regarding any monies still held by the company here in the UK? hope they do as at least it will stop CS from being paid any further but it will be an issue for Gowlings. The race is on as to who can freeze any assets that are remaining I suspect!

Just to add, once a company receives a WUP, it has only 7 working days within which to pay the debt before the creditor who issued the WUP is entitled to advertise the WUP in the London Gazette. That alone, as a public advertisement, can cause a company to fail. The company's bank is then likely to freeze the company's accounts, once the WUP has been advertised. DYOR folks.

The Monday morning winding up court in the High Courts of Justice is always packed with creditors trying to prevent liquidation on the back of a Winding Up Petition but the reality is the battle is invariably lost in a hearing that will last for only a few minutes. If the court decides that a winding up order should be made there is no second chance, the company will be liquidated there and then. The Official Receiver will be appointed to take control of the business and assets. Therefore, if the Company don't settle this quickly, and it goes to that hearing, then it will be kaput! my views.

Wouldn't surprise me if they suspend this first thing tomorrow. How they can keep it running astounds me. It's likely to fall to the floor anyway now, the MMs will be panicking as clearly those still left in fromthe TG are trying to shift their remaining holdings, that's why they were trying to boot it up again at the beginning of last week, whilst a few sold what they could. They will be at it again tomorrow, if this isn't suspended, but in all honesty, it should be suspended until the Gowlings situation is clarified and the debt paid or the hearing has taken place and the result known. Is it really worth them fighting it? If only delays the agony should they lose the Queeld/Mispare case. As I said yesterday, imagine if those shares were allowed to be flooded on to the market if they should win! my views.

Iknownuffin, you didn't even realise that Queeld and Mispare were claiming damages so I don't think anyone takes any notice of anything you say, other than your group of 6 who have sent you out again!

I agree Aubery, I'm astounded Rawlinson remains as a NED, surely he will resign now? I await eagerly to see if the notice is published in the gazette in the next day or two, and then see what other creditors come out of the woodwork. Let's face it, we didn't even know anything at all about the company having any involvement with both Logiks! hat's now 3 sets of litigation and counting, with the major trial for Queeld and Mispare looming in just over a week's time assumedly. The biggest proportion of legal costs falls just before and during trial, so I wonder if the lawyers acting on that case are now in a panic about getting paid? There will have been a lot of money consumed already in legal costs on the Queeld case, but yet the details of those costs are not furnished to investors. The directors have continally refused to give up their salaries and I doubt CS gives a toss, as he is about to retire, and he's the only one in reality who could perhaps face being struck off by the IOD, if this all goes belly up, but he will retire and no doubt escape the scrutiny as I doubt the IOD will bother to pursue someone who has in fact retired from practice. It's been a farce all round, just another lifestyle company, which had a very questionable rise in sp from the ashes to 43p and back down again, with a certain person yet again taking the major position as cheer leader. The same person who courts company ceo's and says he likes to look them in the eye, and devises strategies! I'm sure you can guess who I'm talking about! my views of course.

"If a debt remains unpaid the next step will be to issue a WUP. The procedure is governed by the extremely stringent rules set out is the IA 86 and IR 2016. The key steps include:

drafting the petition, containing all information required by the IR 2016 (76.5). This will include details of the court and the petitioner, the identity of the company, its share capital, a statement of the company's business and the grounds upon which the winding-up order is sought. Where a statutory demand has been served on the company, the petition must also include a statement confirming that fact, the date of service, the fact the demand remains outstanding and that the company is insolvent and unable to pay its debts;

paying the appropriate court fee to issue the petition and an additional sum as the 'petition deposit'. The latter (if the petition is successful) will be passed to the OR to manage the initial stages of the 'winding-up' process. The petition should be issued in the High Court of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. If there are sufficient realisations in the ultimate liquidation of the company, the petition deposit costs will be paid out as a priority expense back to the petitioning creditor;

serving the WUP on the company. It should be handed to a director or other officer or employee of the company at the registered office or to someone who is authorised to accept service on the company's behalf. If that is not possible, an alternative method as prescribed in schedule 4 to the IR 2016 should be followed;

filing a certificate of service, confirming the manner in which service was effected, at court as soon as reasonably practicable after service; and

giving notice of the WUP by advertising it in the London Gazette. This ensures other interested parties are aware of the petition, the date fixed for the hearing and it provides them with the details they need if they want to support or oppose the petition.

Notice of the petition must appear in the Gazette not less than seven business days after service of the petition and not less than seven business days before the day of the hearing. Advertising the petition will potentially notify other creditors that a petition has been issued and when it is to be heard. If the petition is not advertised as required the court can dismiss it.

This is a critical step in the process. If a petition is advertised in the Gazette this can have devastating consequences for the company. Banks monitor the Gazette closely and as soon as a petition is advertised the company will ordinarily have its accounts frozen and will no longer have access to any funds. In circumstances where the company considers it inappropriate for a WUP to have been presented, it can take steps to prevent advertisement of the petition in the Gazette.

filing a certificate of compliance, which confirms notice of the petition has been given, at court not less than five business days before the hearing." same source.

"Service of a statutory demand is very often the first step in the WUP process. This is a formal demand for payment which, if it remains unpaid for more than three weeks, can be used to support a winding up petition.

A statutory demand is not necessary if other evidence is available to illustrate the company's inability to pay its debts, for example evidence that the company has failed to pay other claims, or it has an outstanding judgment, or if the accounts show that the company is insolvent (its liabilities exceeding the value of its assets). However, a statutory demand is a straightforward way of showing a sum is outstanding and (if there is no reply) that it is undisputed.

Very often receipt of a statutory demand will be enough to prompt payment by a company. The company may be aware that a statutory demand is a pre-cursor to a WUP being issued." source: Gowlings

Well clearly that didn't work did it and Eurasia have failed to pay.

Https://www.thegazette.co.uk/insolvency/notice?noticetypes=2450&results-page=1

Https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2019/how-to-wind-up-a-corporate-debtor/#anc-one

Just to help out again -

https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2019/how-to-wind-up-a-corporate-debtor/

What on earth were the auditors playing at? litigation after litigation. Wonder what else will now come out of the woodwork once that notice is published?