Member Info for Toffers

TomE what's your problem? Whilst it's none of your business, I sold 700k shares but still hold 2.2 mill. I put some money in to KOD and held the rest aside. I made a profit on KOD earlier in the week, and banked it. I sold the 700k shares here at 6.4p, so if it drops below the 6.4p again, I will buy them back and some extra on the profit I've made. Is that okay with you? If it doesn't fall back to that level, and for the sake of most of us I hope it doesn't in reality, then I'm not concerned, because I knew the risk when I took it, and I'm happy with my decision, as I still have a good holding for me anyway. Now back off you loser.

Anyone in the facebook group who can truthfully impart what today's judgment states following yesterday's hearing?

Doesn't take much to work out who friendsps is, especially as he makes reference to cloudtag!

Friendsps who I suspect is multi monikered!

1 - Mr Wolfe has been invested way before you came to this forum in your current guise. Anyone is entitled to post on any forum as long as they don't breach the rules, although that doesn't seem to matter for some who continaully hurl vile abuse.

2- same applies to me, I was heavily invested in early 2019, so if I want to comment I don't see why I shouldn't especially when some prefer to twist facts in court pleadings.

3 - instead of posting what a Nomad does, why didn't you just post the link so that people can read for themselves rather than taking up so much room on the page, but then again, that was probably your aim, so that some other posters who you clearly have a dislike for, get sidelined so that their posts get pushed down and out of the way. You could have posted the link and also, you should state your source.

Let's see what the MRE produces MHO1!

Spikey, pay must be running out for the Nomad!

The Judge would have joined any such party in to the proceedings otherwise they would have to discount such evidence. No such person has been joined in!

"It is possible for a party to be added to a civil claim in which they have an interest. Under CPR 19.2(2), the court may order any person to be added as a new party if it is desirable to add them so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings or, under CPR 19.2(2)(b): ‘there is an issue involving the new party and an existing party." source: LexisNet

The Judge won't allow a third party to be named as the actual owners of shares and then not join them in to the proceedings so they can give evidence as to how they obtained ownership. Surely they would want to be joined in, in any event, but no one has applied to be joined in! Any such evidence would be discounted with nothing to back it up such as a witness to say what their understanding of the matter is, so why has this person not produced a statement, especially if they are trying to state they own over 300 million shares?!!!

Read the valuation methodologies, many will know this anyone but worth recapping, and, of course, the reason quite likely why Shaun decided to get his own independent MRE!

Let the fun and games commence.

https://cdn-web-content.srk.com/upload/user/image/AThin_M&A%20Whitepaper%20202020200811233025118.pdf

The share price has already been at 37p has it not, which on the number of shares we currently have brings it out to nearly 2 bn in value, and that's only enough to align us virtually with those who paid at the top, so if the 30% of Hav were to go, it will be substantially more, that's for sure, plus buyers premium loaded on top, so 5bn isn't out of the question I would have thought, but just my musings. DYOR blah blah blah

Come on then, which para in which document precisely? as I said, if there were such a person, the Judge would have insisted on them being joined in to the proceedings, so that they give evidence. Without a statement and any evidence from them, it's a non starter. Furthermore, all you are doing is attempting to push down the post I have made which refers to certain paragraphs in a specific pleading, whereas you have produced no details of what paras you are referring to and in which document. Fed up to the back teeth with your lies, and your continual abuse of me.

IKN, if there was someone else claiming to own the shares, he would be joined in to the proceedings as an intervenor, but hey ho, no one has been joined in. Wouldn't you think the Judge would want to hear evidence from someone if they say they have legal ownership of the shares, and to do that, they would need to be joined in to the action, but nope, that hasn't happened, and no one has made such a request. So that argument fails as the spurious person hasn't made a statement and been joined in to the proceedings.

As for the rest of your tripe, you keep peddling it, but I prefer to read the documents and see what's gone on in black and white, especially from the claimants end.

And where in the amended particulars does it state "it would always have to be more than 30 days"? you know full well it doesn't say anything of the sort.

The insurance company made the offer, so why would they need to look at Q&M more thoroughly? you really do spew out some tripe. They made the offer for a 30 day period of indemnity insurance, with some provisos attached as I have mentioned.

Please pinpoint the exact paras in the amended particulars where your bizarre ramblings are actually quoted?

What does it matter about any other insurance company? they had an offer made to them with certain provisos which was put to the company's share registrars to deal with, but they dragged their heals and the offer was subsequently withdrawn and the war intervened which meant no one was prepared to take the risk once that occurred.

I really do suggest that any investor here takes a caseboard subscription out and reads the documents for themselves and not IKN's distorted versions.

MH01 yes I sold 700k shares, but I still hold 2.2 mill of them, and I put the 700k in to something else, in the hope of turning a bit of profit and sticking more back in to here. If it drops again, I will add, as I added a few a few days ago. Not that it's any of your business. If it goes up and I don't add, so be it, that's the risk I've taken, but seeing how the MMs are playing with the sp with this share, it will be down again tomorrow, so I might just top slice some from elsewhere and bring it back here now that SD has issued that RNS today and we now the things that were feared the most have been alleviated for now.

So you state IKN "The whole case bears upon no insurance being obtained by Q&M, simple end of."

No, that is not true, the whole case pivots around the fact that they had an offer of indemnity insurance for a 30 day period with certain provisos attached, which they asked the company to agree but it didn't happen as Link kept faffing about.

You have also stated earlier on this year when I said the claimants will be entitled to substantial damages if they win their case, that no damages were being claimed, but that was an idiotic thing to say, because damages are clearly a part of the claim and are referred to by the claimants as they were prevented from dealing with their shares.

And I could pick you up on more IKN, but I haven't the time for abusive wasters like you.

You will also note IKN from that document that the claimants refer to their intention to seek substantial damages for their losses.

Lets get something straight shall we IKN, because you continue to distort the truth.

The amended particulars of claim para 60, 22 Feb 2021 the claimants then solicitors informed the share registrars that the claimants were apparently in advanced negotations with an insurer relating to the provision of missing share certificate indemnities and that insurer was prepared to isue the indemnities for a period of 30 days and requested confirmation that upon such proviion, Link would then issue the replacement share certificates. They made it clear that they could not find an insurer or bank who would provide indemnities for an indefinite period.

Para 61 the claimants solicitors made it clear that they wanted the company to acknowledge that since the claimants acquisition of their shares, they had continuously held the same with full legal and beneficial ownership.

That also, the claimants had exercised their rights and without challenge to participate in and vote at AGMS.

Also, that the company had been aware that the share certificates had been missing for in excess of 2.5 years and had ratified that the missing certificates were shown on the share register as lost, stolen or destroyed and that during that period no other party had attempted to claim that the shares had been transferred or registered to a new owner.

Para 62 signifies that the claimants were making it clear that matters were becoming increasingly urgent due to the indemnity insurance situation.

By para 65 it was still dragging on with Link referring the matter to their legal team but yet it still dragged on and on an the opportunity for the indemnity insurance that was on offer was lost, so the claimants had no option but to issue proceedings.

Black Rock, Stateside et al, aren't there and hanging in for nothing. They're still accummulating. They will know more than us retain investors!

Matty, the consolidation will occur after the buy out. Whoever said 5 bn buy out won't occur, let's see, even 5bn is a bargain price for what will be churned through from Hav. It's a ready made set up, there will be a premium to pay, 5bn would be an absolute bargain for that 30%! It could be more! I doubt very much that we will buy Newmont's 70%, too pricey, our MRE is to throw it at them, not the other way around. It will then leave us to concentrate on progressing matters with Rio, and that will bring us more clout in the long run imo. Good move to divest this asset imo, and put the monies in the bank for the other projects and for land grab! My views.

No Magnum I am not Sisu, I have just the one handle, sorry to disappoint you, you aren't much of a PI are you?!!!