Member Info for Toffers

Jarv, if they lose it, it will have an effect for sure, but no one asked the BOD how or why and to what extent. Imagine if they have to pay well over 80 million, they've only got an 80th of that or less left right now, and I'm doubtful, very doubtful, any insurer would pick it up. They'd never get indemnity insurance again that is for sure, so one way or another, it's likely to put them out of business imo. So you'll all have to pray hard that they win, and don't lose, and that there isn't an appeal by the losing side! which will be more legal costs and more time! and litigation always affects how people do business. This is a major shareholder taking the company it's invested in to the High Court. Cannot get worse than that reputational wise, and it hasn't helped other investors left here, as you only have to look at the share price, which has fallen off a cliff since those proceedings began!

They were still required to provide an indemnity BB, and they tried, but the company didn't execute the same on their part when it was provided by the claimants. It's clear as daylight imo that the company did not want the market flooding with shares at that time, it would have ruined their plans! As I say, imo.

Tilly, I don't think they've said he was on it yet have they? They said he was on the passenger list, but he wasn't seen boarding the plane. Also, his other plane was in the sky at the time, and immediately did a turn around as soon as they heard about the crash of the other one and got back to base.

Exactly the point spikeyj, spot on, as I'd already stated :)

No bobbybingo they could not sell on the open market, as I stated, like you or I would. Please also note what was stated about an indemnity.

Stretch, were you talking about yourself by any chance? it seems you were! Nite.

Happychimp, the state, exactly the same, but at least they are going in to production early next year and will excavate them so as to transfer ownership to whoever holds the licences.

NO BOBBYBINGO you have taken what I said totally out of context, how convenient of you, and it shows how deceitful you are. This is what I said;

"In their defence, the company state through their lawyers that their clients had enquired through Link and a certificate was not deemed necessary for Link to record an off-market transaction, for instance, a disposal to an 'established institutional investor' or 'strategic investor' which they stated might be identified by the ever ongoing sales process managed by UBS! However, to sell in any other way, they would require a suitable indemnity.

This paragraph therefore again demonstates that the whole crux was that the claimants clearly wanted to sell their shares, and they wanted to sell them in a manner that suited them, like any other investor would, such as you or I, but they weren't given the chance due to the company stalling on the indemnity when it was offered. An institutional investor would have no doubt paid for less for the shares than if they had managed to sell them on the open market for instance I suspect will be one of their main arguments."

The longer Shaun delays news the worse this will get from short and co unfortunately.

Short tried it last night on eurasia, he said something about exposing the ceo but then the post was removed and he never did explain!

And where exactly does it state that within the court papers bobbybingo? please provide the date of the pleading, and the section with the exact wording, word for word please.

If the company had said the claimants could sell without the certificate, then why are the company asking for an indemnity?!

See how your argument doesn't stack up bobbybingo?

Just shows the mentality of the tribe here, if this is what they send out to post. Let's face it and be honest, this company is dead in the water, it's got no cash, it can't sell anything, it's got a High Court case against it, its minerals are unexcavated so remain the property of the russian state. It's past it's sell by date, and no amount of rubbishing of posters who provide facts to support their views, will resuscitate this. 8.5 years and they've sold nothing, they can't even sell a few bags of concentrate which they are paying to store. Another aim share that has totally lost its credibility and its investors shed loads of money.

For someone to wish that someone was dead, is beyond the pale. To insult them relentlessly calling them trans etc, and to then state you wish covid had killed them is beyond insultive and abusive. You should be ashamed of yourself. I hope people report that post.

Short, did you get Rio Tinto's views on that at all? thought not!

Hi B1ll, they've gone to re-group to sort out a fresh lot of deceptive arguments from their end. Stuff to do also, so will pop in later to see what other sh+te they've been spouting.

B1ll the stalker is amongst us in another guise! :)

I'm waiting bobbybingo.

Provide the exact part of the rns seamus that backs up your statement in it's entirety

Where have they stated they have insurance bobbybingo that will cover the full costs of any damages awarded to the claimants and all their legal costs? where? provide your evidence please.

Bobbybingo, you cannot sell without the certificate.

https://www.upcounsel.com/can-i-sell-shares-without-a-certificate#:~:text=The%20answer%20is%20no%20because%20the%20certificate%20needs,bond%20Pay%20a%20reissue%20fee%20Contact%20the%20Company