Member Info for Toffers

Just a thought which came to mind just now, there is possibly a way the company could settle this dispute, you gave them the power to issue more shares at the last AGM, they could therefore replace the claimants certificates, upon a suitable undertaking being given to the court, and issue the max amount of shares they can issue this year as compensation to the claimants together with some options may be? You never know, the company might then come up with a 'magic' sale of an asset, may be the concentrate minimum? and the sp will have a spurt and the claimants can offload in a manner that might be agreed or if not, as they wish! Company will also pay their costs up to the date of settlement. Let's see. But I suspect the company might run it anyway now and risk it, and then see if they can appeal on a point of law if they lose, and delay matters further. If they win, then it's all immaterial and the claimants will have to pay the company's legal costs. Just my musings of course and DYOR blah blah blah.

I did say last night that MSN money are showing it at 7.9p close!

Hi Offler, very commendable work, and very stressful at times without a doubt I imagine. Stick with it, some of us have to continue trying to fight against the injustices of this world, particularly for those who are marginalised, oppressed, and/or stigmatised groups in society,and who find it hard to find a voice or an advocate in times of difficulty. All lives matters, not just black lives, all lives matter, and with tongue in cheek, even the fudsters! Have a great weekend all.

Should add to make it clear, the case also pivots on whether the share certificates should have been replaced, especially with the offer of indemnity insurance put forward by the claimants. Best I tootle off, would you believe it, I woke up in the middle of the night last night, after finding myself in court arguing the case for the claimants in my dreams! It brought back memories of advocacy! Oh the triggers!

If they do lose the court case, and that is an IF, those still invested, should, in my opinion, and this is my opinion only, demand the immediate removal of Shaffetlisky from the company. He should also pay back all of his salary and pension payments from the date those proceedings commenced. As I say, my views.

Hi Rickstars, I agree, that's why I pointedout certain posters, but it's the usual aim story, some people will have done well out of it and profited, so it's a difficult one to argue, whilst others, believing some of the hype, myself included with the ACF report, decided to stay put, but had I known about the High Court Queeld case, I would have been out, without a doubt, and that's why I vent my frustration and anger. The company concealed those proceedings for 18 months and so I ask myself, why should anyone trust them at all? my views.

I should add that hypothetically these are my views, I'm not in practise any more and this wasn't my area of specialism! So DYOR of course, and as I say, the Judge will decide the case based on all the evidence put before her at the trial. I should perhaps add of course, that if the company should win, then it is likely that the claimants will have to pay all their legal costs!

If I were the Judge, my ruling would be in favour of the claimants on that very point, but obviously I'm not, and the Judge will decide based on the written evidence before her and the oral evidence she hears at trial. Furthermore, I think those of us who were shareholders at that time, could also argue that we were subsequently estopped from selling at the highs, because the company failed to notify us of a very important issue which was this case. Had they notified shareholder in December 2021 when the proceedings began, many could have exited at a much higher sp than occurred when the announcement of the war was made, and the sp dropped like a stone. I would have got out had I known about the proceedings, because us lawyers know, you don't hang around when High Court litigation is pending, get out and await prgoress, and the outcome, and review your investment strategies as more material information comes to light.

So my opinion is that the company have also played the rest of its retail shareholders, yet Black Rock et al were allowed to escape, no doubt on information only imparted to them all!

These are categorically my views, and I am just speaking from my perspective and I haven't read all the pleadings, and what happens, happens, and if the company lose, shareholders should prepare themselves for the fact that there could well be an appeal pending which will take more time and money, but will delay some or all of the payment of damages. I've no doubt in my mind that the claimants certificates will be reinstated, probably by way of an undertaking given to the court that the shares have not, and do not belong to anyone else.

The Judge will be annoyed with that very late application regarding new witness evidence and rightly so. Whoever advised that was running a huge risk, as it will undoubtedly taint the Judge's view of the matter, although it shouldn't, but no doubt will! Smacks of incompetence. As I say, these are my views and DYOR everybody, it's your investment and your decisions, and take your own legal and financial advice. Back to reading for me for the weekend. Enjoy :)

Hi Offler many thanks for your support, and I've taken lots of verbal abuse from IKN and his alter ego DR, but don't let it worry you, I let most of it go over my head, you have to be thick skinned on forums like this one, but what I don't like is when they continually post false information or twist it to suit their narrative. However, most of those left on this forum are long termers and hopefully can see through the bull of these two and their mates.

The problem is they gang up en masse and if they want you out they will just report you and have you removed.

I think I'm still around as they enjoy the thrill of the entertainment! :)

I was a lawyer for 28 years, worked in a number of areas, including civil procedure stuff and conveyancing for a short period but found it too boring, ended up in famiy with a specialism in child protection work.

Finally left the profession a while back now and decided to go back and study, got a B.Sc in psychology through The OU and am now doing an M.Sc with Wolverhampton online, which started two weeks ago. So just at the end of week 2 of the first module, and to my delight, Task 1 at the end of this week is to identify a website/app for assessment, paste a link to my workbook and explain why i chose it and clearly demonstrate a reasoned approach that incorporates push and pull factors. So no prizes in guessing correctly what the website will be! :)

Going to be busy for the rest of the weekend as have to submit that final part for this week by Monday, but glad to know there is someone else connected with the same profession, law, that's had teremity to speak out against the resident fudsters here.

I am doubtful that the company will win this case brought by two of the major shareholders of the company. The matter was quite simple, the claimants lost their share certificates and wanted them replacing, unfortunately for them, it happened at a time when the sp was climbing to an all time high and so the claimants couldn't profit from the same. They tried to sort it with the company, even obtaining an offer of indemnity insurance which was on offer for a 30 day period but the company's share registrars, Link, did nothing about it and it expired. There were also provisos in that the claimants wanted confirmation from the company that they remained legal and beneficial owners of the shares and the company had still allowed them to vote at AGMs! The Judge hasn't thrown the case out at first instance because she doesn't think there is a case to be answered, and the company has failed to provide any witness statements from what I can see, alleging that a transfer of ownership of the shares has occurred. So as I see it, the case simply pivots on whether the claimants were estopped from trying to deal with their shareholdings in that they might have sold some or all of their shares and that would have flooded the market at a time when the company didn't want that to happen ie. due to placings at the sp high

Am I missing the point, as I haven't seen the article, but my view was that Newmont aren't revealing the latest figures because they want to get the deal done. They will then buy out our share of Tel/Hav, the 30% and Shaun is having an independent MRE done so that we, as shareholders, will see true value of Hav, and Newmont will have to stump up somewhere between their valuation and ours! I think Newmont will take it and its always been the plan. Whether they sell it on is another thing for them. We don't need a processing plant for anything else, as Rio have one in the Pilbara I believe, from the link I posted recently. This is why I think our MRE will come out after the Newmont vote is through and not before as there's a clear timing reason to all of this. My views though and might be way off beam of course, but I think Shaun wants to divest Tel/Hav and concentrate on the JV with Rio which could end up being far more lucrative. my views.

There's a sequence Jiffy if you look, JF is attacking aim shares that have had rns's today, and which are currently being shorted to some degree! Comes out late on, so must be stateside so not difficult to work out why!

For some reason have us at 7.90p close!

Greatland Gold PLC (GGP)

7.90

‎+14.49%

You carry on making a fool of yourself. My uni lecturer will find it hilarious when he comes to read it.

Weekend of reading awaits me. Best of luck to the genuine. The others are so deep in water with their millions of shares, that they are trying to work out how to exit!

No seamus, there will be damages, and they are likely to be millions, plus legal costs to pay, if the company lose. I somehow doubt an insurer is going to pick up the tab, plus, it's highly likely the company wouldn't get any insurance cover again, or only at a very substantial premium because who is going to risk insuring them based on a loss of this magnitude if it occurs?

Perhaps Eurasia's BOD would actually come out and explain to shareholders why they kept these proceedings from shareholders for 18 months? and then only acknowledged them when another shareholder spilt the beans. That would be a start. How can any investor trust them in all honesty! imo.

IKN you have got nothing right regarding this case, Nothing. No one listens to you, you just fill up the forum for the sake of doing so, and no one is the slightest bit interested in you, nor your views, they count for nothing, and the same applies to your vile abuse of anyone who challenges your dimwittedness.

Mr Wolfe, you assemble all your evidence prior to, or at the earliest convenience once a case begins. The court set down a rigorous timetable for witness statements and so on to be filed, and for directions hearings, setting out procedures to be followed. I haven't seen all the pleadings in this case, just the particulars of claim and the amended particulars of claim. I think I did start to read the company's defence but gave up, because my early view was it was a non runner from their perspective. It appeared to me that they had simply dragged their feet over the matter because they didn't want the market flooding with a mass of shares for sale when they were looking at placings etc, it didn't suit their agenda, and between them, the claimants are holding over 380 million shares! My view is probably also tainted by the fact that the company kept these proceedings secret for 18 months until another shareholder stumbled across them, so clearly the company were trying to hoodwink retail investors and keep it from them, in my opinion.

Once the court gives directions, they expect the directions to be adhered to. Those directions will include the filing of witness statements in a timely manner. The court will only expect witness statements from those who have been made known within the pleadings. So when eurasia filed their defence to the action, they should have stated then what witnesses if any they intended to rely on to support their case, but it seems they didn't do that.

The court listed the matter for trial over a month ago, being the week commencing 13 November from memory, as I rang to ask them. So at this late stage, when pleadings should now be concluded, and trial bundles will be under way to being prepared by the claimants, it was very late in the day to try and introduce new evidence in the form of a witness that you haven't previously bothered to mention to the court. It's poor form in a civil case, when you must have known from the start who you intended to call effectively.

The Judge has the discretion to throw the case out at first instance if the Judge believes the case to be spurious and brought for no obvious reason. The Judge hasn't done that, and the Judge will have read the pleadings to date, so assumedly the Judge must think there is a case to be heard.

These are my own views because I am not practising, but as I say, to make an application to produce new witness evidence at such a late stage, and now by the sounds of it, they don't even know who they wanted to produce as a new witness, well, I can only imagine what the Judge thought in her own mind!

So in a nutshell, the Judge must think there is a viable case to be heard and it's going to trial. As I have said, my gut feeling is that this will be a win for the claimants, but at the end of the day, it comes down to oral evidence from the parties and any witnesses, and who the Judge determines is the more credible party. My views only & the Judge will de

And as for IKN laying it on thick, oh the claiamnts lawyers were looking silly, they were embarrasing etc as he claimed, well hey IKN, I know that was complete carp from you, so instead of abusing others, do us all a favour and leave here for good.

Who lost today's hearing Beast?