Member Info for Toffers

I'm not Sisu, I only have the one handle here. Convinced of buy out, so they can then fund more of the Rio JV with land grab possibly, which will be a bigger nugget for us in the end. I'm sure Shaun is dying to tell us but that's the nearest he can get to without spilling the beans totally. So I'm betting on a buy out by Newmont, and at a guess, £1 per share pay out. DYOR and join your own dots as it's not a given, just my thoughts on reading between the lines of today's rns.

Clear as daylight now, we're being bought out! No asx listing until 2024, by which time we have the updated MRE which Newcrest wouldn't let us have in the first place, and then Shaun can tell Newmont, you're paying us full wack. Wyloo's loan is 'unsecured', ask yourself why? because there's no point securing it to these assets with a take over in play. Still feel sorry for Newcrest investors though as they don't have an MRE to hand to get true value imo, but good for us I suppose, as ours will be fully updated. Join those dots. Asx listing will happen, but strategically, there's no point right right now as we won't need the tax incentives associated with it just yet, not for production.

Logging off now, not been well late this afternoon, so an early night for me for a change! Nite all, whichever side of the fence you sit!

IKN you know there wasn't anyone quite with that name on the list, but it could be you of course in the male form, but then again, your ignorance of english law makes me think your mackey the scot!

Calls, that was one of my points long ago, my view is that the company didn't want the claimants off loading the shares en masse at a time when they were looking to raise, so the claimants didn't have a cat in hells chance of having their certificates replaced nor their indemnity insurance offer accepted by the company. My views but it stinks along with everything else here in all honesty.

Ha ha Summit, I must have done something right, as I managed to retire at 45 and study since then to keep my mind active! See you at The Town Hall next week, you can buy me a drink!

For IKN and Summit as they don't seem to comprehend!

https://www.lawbite.co.uk/resources/blog/shareholder-register-what-it-is-and-how-to-create-one

'ambulance chasing' refers metaphorically speaking to lawyers and insurers chasing a victim in a road traffic accident to the hospital in order to try and pick up the personal injury case. This is not a personal injury case Summit! Totally irrelevant.

That's hilarious B1ll, but very true.

Summit, you ask a client for their version of events, if they say they own something but can't prove it, then obviously you advise them of the risks, and your views that they should probably look at settling. The fundamental question here is about the ownership of shares, following the loss of the certificates, and the share register is what essentially matters as there is a legal obligation on the company to keep that updated and to produce it on demand in certain circumstances. Bear in mind, all shares are now registered electronically. I doubt very much that the claimants would have been advised to pursue the case unless they are shown on the share registers as having ownership of the shares. I don't recall seeing anything in the pleadings to suggest they transferred them to anyone, but then again, even if they had, the new owner(s) should have made themselves known to the share registrar, but there's been no hint of that to my recollection. If I were the claimants, I'd let the case roll on to trial now, what have they got to lose in reality, not a lot other than to pay the company's legal fees if they lose, but they've got far more to gain from it if they should win, as they will be entitled to substantial damages in my view, so let it roll on. my views.

Are you suggesting a barrister is going to lie to a Judge and risk being in contempt of court, and struck off, if he hadn't checked the situation before cross examining witnesses and making submissions?

Summit, that's a preposterous statement and you know it, the claimants had been trying to sort the matter out since 2018, and because they were getting nowhere, issued proceedings in December 2021 as a last resort, and the war then intervened in February 2022! They obtained an offer of indemnity insurance prior to the war starting but it wasn't dealt with by the company. Do you honestly think the claimants would have been advised to commence the proceedings if they didn't own the shares? No barrister worth his or her salt would take that risk if your clients hadn't been able to evidence that they own the very thing they are making a claim about. my views.

Summit, who says it wasn't sufficient and why?

So let's back track to the start of this being an application being heard today, assumedly at short notice. So who brought the application because that wasn't clear. Well it's clear now that Eurasia must have brought it in an attempt to settle by the back door by saying they will now accept a counter signatory (according to IKN regarding the counter signatory matter). So the company are trying their hardest now suddenly to wriggle out of this claim it seems! In the pleadings, it clearly states that the claimants tried to get indemnity insurance and indeed, they were offered the same with a 30 day acceptance period before expiry, and it was sent to the company through their share registrars, but wasn't executed and thus expired. They tried to get it renewed, but the war intervened and were told that it was no longer available. You can't blame Mispare and Queeld for that, they'd been trying since 2018 to sort the matter out with very little input from the Company. So now, 5 years on, the Company says, according to IKN, who attended the hearing we assume, that they will accept a counter signatory if the claimants can find one supporting the fact that the claimants still own their shares? Link know who own the shares on behalf of the company as they maintain the register of shareholders, so if there has been any transfer they would know about it, so why is the company asking for this? they know full well who owns the shares, their share register should evidence this, and if it doesn't, then what the hell are they playing at? why ask for a counter signatory relating to ownership when they should know who owns the shares? Link has a legal obligation to the company to know who owns each and every single share! my views.

Plus there was an offer of indemnity, but the company ignored it through their share registrars, and it expired. Then the war intervened and the claimants couldn't get another indemnity because of the war.

Summit that will come down to the claimants showing that the shares still belong to them. Providing they do, and as they have no certificates, and we've been through all of this before, but it's not easy to transfer shares unless you have the certificates, then they should be able to prove that they still own the shares. All they need do is provide an undertaking to the court that they still own the shares, and that undertaking should, I would have thought, suffice for a counter signature to be obtained, although, the difficulty now is that it involves Russian minerals currently owned by the Russian State as they are in unexcavated form, so whether anyone is prepared to provide a counter signature that will connect them to Russia in any way, is another thing. If they've made this offer today, that they will accept a counter signature, they've made it far too late, they could have done it way before the war commenced between 2018 when it all kicked off and 2022! my views.

IKN the pleadings make it clear, they had an offer of indemnity for a period of 30 days which they sent to the company to approve and ratify, but the company did nothing and the 30 day period expired. Then the war intervened and because of the war and it involving Russia, with Russian mineral assets involved, no one would then provide an indemnity. How you like to twist things!

Summit, read the pleadings with the chronology of events listed therein

You're the loser mackey

IKN the facts are in the pleadings. Your desperation smacks of the fact that the company are about to throw in the towel and are trying to settle. Looks like this is last chance saloon to me to try and deflect and get the sp up ready for a placing to raise funds for a paltry offer of damages to the claimants. My views of course, but your air of desperation is quite apparent IKN.

There is no 'prosecution' in civil cases! Makes me think you're a known criminal IKN, who has frequented criminal courts not civil ones! or you're scottish, using the name maccallum!