Member Info for Toffers

And if it's for legal reasons, under what law or regulation?

And ....... what was the reason?

Rubbish about the DFS, other companies manage to produce it in mining, it's crucial, so why can't they? legal reasons is rubbish.

Same old, same old, nothing concrete from them at all by the sounds of it! Queeld case still rumbles on, DR's explanation is foolhardy. They could have sorted out the question of ownership way before it ended up being taken to court. It's also a misnoma, as if someone else owns the shares, then the Judge would have thrown it out, you can't sue for something if you don't actually own it! Usual rubbish. And I suppose CS is still at the helm. Says it all, with his fat cat salary, and they'll get the resolution to flood the market with more shares and dilute you all. Bravo Board, another year of dangling the carrot then!

I might try and do that wolfie, I've got long covid and am absolutely shattered!

Unless DR is either the Nomad or the auditor!!!! heaven help everyone if that should be the case!

Is DR claiming he's going to be present at the AGM tomorrow? has someone screenshot it, because the meeting isn't an open one is it? it's only virtual. So if he's claiming he's going to be there, then why can't other shareholders attend?

I'm actually ashamed of you Ashok. If only your wife knew what you write on here, I'm sure she'd be shocked as I am.

Had a private lunch with Christian again lately Ashok? I know it's definitely you now because you told me what your holding was, less the £2 mill you cashed in to buy your two daughters their homes in SW16!

Great reply Del ;)

Please can someone ask them point blank tomorrow if their indemnity insurers will cover every monetary detail to do with the Queeld case, should the company lose? including damages and costs in full? if not, how is it going to be covered?

If they lose, and they've only got 40k in cash, and if the insurers won't pick up the tab, then yes, it could! This is a case against eurasia mining and not against one of it's separate legal entitites being a subsidiary.

Del, all sides will have to pay their own legal fees up until trial, at trial the winning party will no doubt ask the Judge to award costs, you will find that Queeld and Mispare have claimed costs, just below their claim for 'damages'. The Judge will then decide what to award in costs to the winning side, and the losing party will have to pay those costs that the winning party has amassed, but in the interim, both parties have to pay their own costs leading up to trail, and the most expensive part in terms of costs is just before trial when court bundles have to be prepared, barristers instructed to represent the parties and so on, that's why it's advisable to try and settle prior to trial, even if it's at the door of the court. I went to Wales once on a case, travelled with my client, and his accountant for a two day hearing. We settled outside the court door just before being called on, which thankfully meant I got to go home earlier than planned! Two years in preparing that case, as the client refused to settle, and then right at the court door as we were about to be called in, he said I'll settle, give her what she wants!

Disbursements ie out of pocket expenses etc

Leno, they need to pay legal fees whilst the cases are running, no lawyer will work for free on a High Court case, plus there's court filing fees and other disvursements that will need paying also! Wake up man!

You'll get shot down for saying that, I've already been there. Q the chuckle brothers! ;)

Don't forget they've got two sets of lawyers on the High Court cases, and they won't be working for nothing! I suspect a lot of costs will be legal fees.

Have just dropped us to 6.90p yet again!

Konstantin Firstov, look him up on the internet.

Is there for a reason, please don't respond, they are now on a lost cause.