Member Info for Toffers

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.

The absent posters who have been awol for a year or more are the ones who pumped, took their money, and ran. You don't see any of them now, only occasionally making a brief appearance if one of their gang spots a post being made and so they put their head in to make you think otherwise. They pumped it and left. Those that stayed in got caught out. It was pumped on hot air, everyone sees that, it's just a little difficult to admit it finally when you're stilll stuck in. At the end of the day, it was all hype over nothing. They've never sold anything, not even concentrate, and they've never vocalised any supposed offers to shareholders. It must be the longest asset sale in history!

It's AIM, it's unregulated, it happens time and time again, and it will happen again very soon, but not here I'm afraid imo. Anyone plausible find out from Keith yet whether the company are covered for all legal costs and damages on the Queeld case? I doubt you'll get an answer! I do hope Master McQuail reads this forum, it must be highly entertaining for her I'm sure. If she is reading, personally, I take a very dim view that the High Court proceedings were concealed from shareholders by the Board for 18 months +, as I have repeatedly said, if it had been made known, then I would have jumped ship, and thus recovered my original investment, but alas. In essence, the rest of us shareholders, were treated with the same disdain that the claimants were, no doubt because the BOD didn't want a mass sell off which would have ruined the chances of further placings! BR were clearly in the know, that's for sure! my views. Nothing to see here.

Newmont's share price is rising!

If Zac gave a prediction of a rise yesterday up towards 9.5p, then you can bet your bottom dollar we're going there, so this drop won't be there for long. Zac is godfather to TW's child - there will be a plan for sure, I suspect some well known folks have gone long, and we could see a push upwards following Shaun's deliverance :)

Hi Jet47, thank you so much for your kind words, really thoughtful of you, and I wish you a speedy recovery, and no side effects hopefully. I've had it twice, right at the start, after returning from Monaco in Feb 2020 and then again in August 2022 and that was despite 2 jabs and the pfizer booster. The Aug 2022 bout was the worst ever, I couldn't get out of bed for a week, and when you're on your own, it's no fun. The second week I was just zombified, but I'm not convinced it was the second bout that led to long covid, because all my energy drained away within two weeks of the pfizer booster and has never returned. They told me in Feb this year that I have long covid, and then early summer I started with the worst insomnia ever and night sweats which seem to be happening no matter what time of day it is now. I've just had 3 particularly bad nights, so I'm not really fit to go anywhere today sadly, otherwise I would love to have gone and heard Shaun speak. They can't say how long this lasts for, as they have no idea currently. All I would say is please folks, start wearing masks again, because it's clearly spreading again, and no one wants to be like this, I can assure you.

Here's hoping for a fruitful day, courtesy of Shaun, and I look forward to reading the commentary from those who are attending, it's keeping me going, and many thanks to everyone as at the end of the day, friend or foe, we're all here to try and make money and help ourselves and our families to a better future, covid free hopefully soon :) xxx

Guys I don't think I'm going to make it tomorrow, I've had a hellish two days again, worse than usual with long covid, so if anyone would like my ticket, if you can let me have your twitter handle I can try and send a photo of the ticket for you. Please, only genuine holders, I'm not feeling up to coping with all the dross who think it's fun to attack posters tonight. Thanks.

Let's hope so MH01 but at the moment, the market makers continue to have the upper hand it seems!

Their rns's have made it clear about cash burn.

Summit, tell that to everyone, but the likes of ikn, dattabase, bobbybingo and the rest will continue to argue that everything is rosy when in actual fact it's far from being! I only respond because most of what they spew out is tripe, and they produce no facts to help assert their arguments. Where's evidence from ikn that the company is covered by indemnity insurance for its legal costs and any damages that might be ordered against it for this case? why won't he accept there is another side of the coin, which is the exact opposite and that it could be very costly for the company come what may? someone needs to ask Keith and demand an answer from him as to whether the company are covered in the entirety or not? I suspect with the cash burn, and the fact that the directors have been named individually, they probably aren't, but someone ask as it would make a big difference to know the facts on that score. Surely one of the long term decent posters can ask? perhaps Del can?

Beggars belief from what I can see that they brought that late application regarding a witness as to the shareholding yet they can't even name the witness? I know what the Judge will have thought of that. stand by your beds for the trial, it isn't going to be pretty I suspect!

Ask the insurers if they are paying ikn? I doubt it somehow, and I suspect that's why the cash has now run so low! A lot of cash has been expended in the last few months.

Officecat, not necessarily the case, indemnity insurance can be nullified if the claim is notified too late or there is a loophole that allows the insurers to escape from the same. There could be many reasons why indemnity insurers will not cover, and if you notice, the amended particulars were altered by the claimants so as to name the directors personally, each and every one, as well as suing the company itself.

Doesn't look as though the markets are buying in to this at the moment, the position has hardly changed from a few weeks ago, what on earth is it going to take to get the market makers to switch the green light back on?

https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/ggp/ownership

Friendsps, as you pointed out some time ago I believe, from recollection, it has nothing to do with the Nomad, it's a matter for the auditor! it relates to price sensitive information whereupon investors were unable to review their investment strategies as they were unaware of the action nor the seriousness of it. Had they been made aware, then they could have done so, and perhaps avoided the heavy losses that some have incurred as a result, if they had decided to sell on the news, but they weren't given the chance to review and consider. As I said, CS had no problem in communicating the same scenario but with the boot on the other foot and the company concerned that he is involved in taking proceedings recently. Good night.

Friendsps, the court case was bound to result in price sensitive information. I, for one, would have jumped out there and then had it been made known. CS is all to eager to notify shareholders in another company he is involved in that the company there have taken proceedings against another company, but he can't bring himself to notify shareholders here that the company have had proceedings taken against them, You can't have it both ways, he deemed it important to inform the market of the proceedings in the other share, but not in this one! And furthermore, didn't then disclose it in the end of year reports, and at no time before that, nor indeed after that, until it was disclosed by another.

Bobzrig, wrong again, at the present time it is in the list for hearing the week beginning 13 November, but it doesn't mean it will be heard then, the High Court decide the lists very much on a day to day basis. If another case overruns, or the Judge is delayed with something, or ill, then it will be postponed to the next available date. You really have no idea do you!

The question of damages is determined once the main issue has been decided upon, as damages then follow on if the claimants are successful in their claim. That's why reference to damages and other relief comes at the end of the claim in the pleadings. The Judge then hears specifically from both parties on the question of damages as a separate issue, and then also on the question of costs.

And you cannot rule out that the losing party might attempt to appeal on a point of law, and if successful, should they try to do so, then the matter will drag on even further.

They don't need to prove it, they can give evidence on it once they know whether they have won the initial point, which is the issue of whether the certificates should have been replaced. Read what I just posted about it, the Judge has the power to award any damages that he or she considers fit, given all the circumstances of the case, regardless of whether they are cited in the pleadings or not.

Bobzrig, you would think the insurers would have asked to have been joined in to the proceedings so as to initiate a two pronged attack on the claimants, but regardless, the company initially acted in person before instructing lawyers, so it makes me think the insurers are not assisting, and may be the company notified the insurers too late or have somehow invalidated the claim, but as I said earlier, I'm surprised no one has asked the company outright for clarification as to whether they are fully covered for the claim or not?

OSF, firstly, you need to read the following in the claimants amended particulars of claim;

para 60 states that the claimants were in advanced negotiations with an insurer for the purposes of providing indemnities and notified the company of the same, and that the insurer was prepared to issue the indemnities for a period of 30 days, and that therefore a request was made that the same be agreed along with other matters.

para 61 demonstrates that the claimants lawyers asked the company to also have regard to the fact that they had continuously held full legal and beneficial ownership of the shares since purchase, that the claimants had utilised their rights as shareholders without challenge, including participating in and voting at AGMs, an d the company had been aware that the certificates had been missing for over 2.5 years and this was shown on the share register as lost, stolen or destroyed and no third party had attempted to claim that the shares had been transferred to them or that they had been registered to a new owner on the share register.

para 73 the claimants state the company through their solicitors rejected the claimants proposal for a 30 day indemnity and that instead the company wanted affidavits.

Para 74 sets out that the claimants were prepared to provide affidavits and enclosed drafts.

paras 83, 84, 85 and 86 are particularly important ones, read for yourself,

and then we get to the claimants claims for each of them, and you will see,

(4) damages to be assessed, which you have mentioned,

but then at (5) it states 'further or other relief', which as any lawyer knows, it leaves the door wide open to claim any further damages which the court might deem acceptable, it is a way for a claimant to seek additional remedies beyond the initial claim for damages or put another way, to request alternative forms of compensation or remedies. It should also be noted that the Judge has within her power the ability to grant any remedy to which she feels the claimants are entitled, even if it is not specified in the claim form, so if they win on the point about the share certificates, then damages will follow, and if the claimants lawyers then ask for the Judge to consider further losses ie. as a result of not being able to sell their shares, they have been financially prejudiced, then the Judge will consider it.

lost out financially as a result, then the Judge is entitled to consider the same.