Member Info for Toffers

Appears to have tightened! Looking forward to late this afternoon and news from posters regarding Shaun's talks :)

Pleasure ace, wish I felt well enough to go and gutted I won't make it, but thank you for your kind words. Lse share chat kept me going though covid lockdowns, chat forums have been a godsend for some people in that respect. Enjoy the event. If per chance you can, do email me to let me know what Shaun is saying, but don't worry if you can't, I'm sure plenty will hopefully post as soon as they can :)

Don't forget also Summit, we don't know if the insurers had to pay out on the Logik case? or whether the company did?

Summit, disbursements are usually payments for things that cannot be avoided legally, but when it comes to that Rosgeo money? it was a large sum. where did it go?

Bfl, correct!

This mornings case list shows that Logik are now being sued by Eqtec!

Just sent it to you ace x

Ace I can send you mine

No Summit, they have it, but it doesn't expressly mean they are covered for these proceedings, nor do shareholders know what any financial ceiling limit is on the policy, but yes, you are correct in indicating that there's nothing anyone invested can do about it, it's in the lap of the gods!

IKN, let's recall that recent interlocutory hearing for a late application to produce a new witness to the proceedings. You stated that the claimants lawyers had struggled to defend the application, they looked forlorn or similar words and you gave the impression they looked pathetic and were beaten. I told you that in my opinion, the application had been brought far too late in the day and the Judge was unlikely to entertain it, and who was right? yes, me! You have no credibility here in anything you say at all, you always get it wrong, and then to try and cover yourself you hurl abuse at posters who actually call you out and have made valid points. On top of that, you renege on a charity bet to a hospice, where people are dying, and any contribution large or small, is welcome, just to make someones final days a little bit more brighter, even just £30 I think it states on their website to pay for someone to have the treat of a massage, and yet you cannot even be bothered to do that, and your alter ego, who donates all of £5, has to make a rude comment aimed at myself on the charity's website. You are absolutely beyond pathetic.

Right, I've gone to the trouble of looking at the last annual accouts, and it states "The group maintains Directors and Officers liability insurance as an indemnity provision renewed annually." So they assumedly do have it, although I believe there is no legal requirement to have it, but it states they do have it, but whether any exclusion clauses have been applied due to the Queeld case is unknown and that's my concern.

Also, someone was asking about this, and it states within the same document;

"The Company has continued to fund Group companies through international disbursements as required and in compliance with applicable regulation." international disbursements??? friends, you can probably clarify that one?

There are also a whole host of exclusion clauses bfl in any policy, one usually being 'negligence', and a few others that I have listed. You can't sit there and say they are covered, because shareholders don't know if they are, or aren't, and to what extent if they are.

Friendsps, it's already under investigation, I've told you several times!

Bigfatlad, there are numerous exclusions that could apply, was notification of the claim given in time, were any of the directors negligent which then resulted in the proceedings being brought, all sorts of things. Then we have the war! The 'assets' are on russian soil, and Russia are at war with the West, including the UK, which is regarded by Russia as a hostile territory. That could be an issue for the insurers, and one which also, they might not be prepared to cover due to the war, as how will the insurers attempt to recover any of their costs from the company if the company lose the case as they could sue themselves if there might be an suggestion of negligence or other misdemeanour? I'd be surprised if any indemnity insurer has touched this to be honest, but it could easily be answered if the company made it clear, which they haven't, or someone at least asks Keith for a straight answer on it. It's an important point, because if they are not covered for some reason, and they lose the case, then how are they going to pay the damages when supposedly there is virtually no money left? if someone asks and Keith says yes they are covered in full, then it provides peace of mind, but then again, it will still come down to the Judge's determination on what she hears in evidence, reads in the pleadings, and whether she decides there is any negligence at all on the part of the BOD which could then be a complication I suspect. my views but I'm just saying, there could be valid exclusion clauses and you can't rule that out, because shareholders don't know, simple as that.

And actually friendsps, you stated you were going to contact the Nomad, so did you do it? and did you get a response? or were you just talking to yourself?!!!

You must have very long tea breaks then friendsps! It;s funny how you only recently appeared isn't it, and set your mind to slating someone who was a long term holder and invested way way before you appeared. You clearly have an over inflated ego, but you carry on, you just make a fool of yourself at will, so be my guest.

IKN, you make that as though it is a statement of fact which it is not, because that's exactly what Master McQuail will have to determine at trial, so best to leave it to her, because I think she knows a lot more about the law than you do, as you've shown your ignorance here so many times, including you stating there was no claim for damages when it was there in black and white in the pleadings, and a whole host of other pearlers that you have come out with!

Friendsps, as an accountant, you seriously worry me! seriously. Your behaviour is not befitting someone in such a profession in my view, especially when you post on a chat forum and ridicule posters at will, and within working hours!

Here's just some,

Professional indemnity policy exclusions are clauses that remove, limit or change the standard coverage of the policy for certain causes or events.

Wilful negligence or misconduct

Liability arising from illegal violations

Claims before buying the policy

Nuclear or war-related perils

Late notification outside of policy terms

Bigfatlad, actually I'm not, because there are a mass of exclusion clauses relating to indemnity insurance as I'm sure you will know. A fundamental one being notifying the insurers outside of the specified period of a claim, and usually, those specified periods are very short, like 30 or 60 days, and there's a whole host of other exclusion clauses that can come in to play, so no, it's not guaranteed, and someone needs to ask! You will also note that the company weren't originally represented from recollection, they acted in person, which to my way of thinking, is another hint that they might not have been covered, otherwise the insurers would have taken over from day 1 and arranged legal representation to defend to the hilt. Something is not right here, and the company funds have dwindled significantly in recent months, which to my mind, suggests they are paying their legal costs, but unless anyone ascertains actual proof, it's impossible to know. The lawyers now assigned appear to be acting on behalf of the company, and not the insurers. my views.